Comments about ‘Duo didn't wed, but they did divorce’

Snuffer's solution of having the relationship declared a partnership and dissolved that way would be much more likely to allow polygamy, gay marriage, and underage marriage then the divorce the court granted.

OK... it truth I DID read the article..
But - hay, it's been one of those days... and nothing in this article made sense to me..
can someone please put it more in a layperson's understanding for me..

Please NO rude remarks..
as I said before.. it's been one of those days...
thanks

This article is nothing new. Utah (and nearly all other states) have long recognized common law marriage. Heck, you can find information on it on the Utah State Courts web site. To assert a common law marriage:
* Both parties must be of legal marriage age and able to give consent
* Both parties must capable of being married
* The parties must live together as man and wife
* The parties must assume marital responsibilities and duties
* The parties must "hold themselves out" as husband and wife, such that others perceive them to be married.

The couple in the story met this standard for decades. What's the problem?

I swear, I can't believe this. I can't believe that a couple would come back and lie to everyone about being married and then lie to their bishop about being married and get sealed in the Temple. What planet were they living on? Did they really think that God didn't know what they did? This is really weird.

You're right, Ace -- this was clearly a common law marriage, and properly subject to a decree of divorce. Kudos to the court for correctly deciding this case.

How do people live lies for so many years?

Jan San, I understand your confusion. The reporter reported both the defendant lawyer's arguments and the plantiff lawyer's arguments.

The Utah supremene court sided with the plantiff, and the guy has to pay the alimony.

The loser lawyer whined that this would cause a lot of weird situations in Utah, but the winning lawyer said that was nonsense, that this case would apply only to a small group.

One of the loser's arguments was that formerly in Utah you did not automatically have a common law marriage after so many years of living together.

Commenter "Ace" referred to the current conditions for a common law marriage in Utah, which sounds like Utah is now more like other states, and you are automatically married after some number of years living together as well as the other requirements he mentioned.

The losing lawyer is just hyperventilating. This won't lead to civil unions or anything akin to them.

@ Ace: There is one additional requirement in Utah - within a year of the end of the relationship, one party must file paperwork declaring the couple was married. A divorce does not do that.

@ JanSan: Several years ago this couple pretended to get married but never did. They then filed for and were granted a divorce. The man decided he did not want to pay alimony, so refused because they had technically never been married. They have been fighting it back and forth in court and finally the Utah State Supreme Court said that their divorce action was valid and he has to pay her.

His lawyer thinks this will allow the state to recognize and grant divorces in other cases where a marriage did not exist - which could technically lead to recognition of those marriages. He instead thinks the relationship should be treated like a partnership and dissolved that way - 50/50.

Her lawyer says the case is very narrow and only applies to this situation and won't lead to recognition of unlawful marriages.

No, Utah does not have an automatic common law marriage. This case did not meet marriage status according to Utah law--even the supreme court agreed that it did not meet the requirement to be concidered a marriage.

That's what nobody here is understanding. The state supreme court just allowed a judge to apply divorce law to what should have been strictly a business law dicision. Do you understand the implications?

Divorce law is entirely different than business law--yet now a judge can use divorce law to decide a civil case between two businesses. That's not a "NARROW" implication.

Side bar question:
What kind of a name is Snuffer? Is it a noun, like Boozer?

@ r jensen: They were two individual people - they were not businesses, nor were they in a business relationship.

Treating this relationship as a business and dissolving it as a business would have allowed any other personal relationship to be dissolved and treated as a business. The implications then would have been much broader and much more generally applicable.

This ruling, no matter how broadly you read it, only applies to people who were in a relationship similar to marriage who were legally able to enter into a marriage relationship. That automatically eliminates same-sex, polygamous, and underage relationships.

Treating personal relationships as business relationships would mean all personal relationships could be treated that way - including same-sex, polygamous, and underage, because there are no legal restrictions on those when it comes to businesses (except maybe the underage ones).

It has been proposed many times that treating polygamous relationships as business partnerships would eliminate many of the hurdles faced by those who wish to legalize them.

Treating this case as a business case would have reinforced the idea that such a thing is possible (which may not be such a bad thing depending on how you feel about polygamy.)

Maudine-- All relationships that are not marriages wherein joint property is involved IS A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP AND NON OTHER. So you are saying if two brothers own a piece of property together and are not married, it is not a business relationship because it is a family relationship? Ridiculous. This was not a marriage recognized by the state of utah so it was no different than a sibling relationship or any other platonic relationship, yet they used divorce law to decide it. Don't you get it? Should the court issue a divorce decree for two brothers in dispute over a piece of property? What if they were living together? A judge can do that now--after this ruling. This ruling IS FAR REACHING. Your logic is backwards.

What about siblings living together or a child taking care of a parent--the child or sibling paying all of the bills for many years dicides to leave? By this ruling (if for some reason the two ended up in court) a judge has a the right to make the one who left continue to pay "alimony" to the one who didn't have a job-- under the "divorce law" that even though they weren't married. Far fetched that it would ever happen? Maybe (I've seen crazier things), but the fact that a judge can do this now due to the state supreme court is scary. This is FAR REACHING. There will be a great deal of abuse to this new case law in many ways that are much more subtle than the example I wrote above. Watch out Utah courts. As a community I think we need to be able to play a more active roll in who sits in the high court.

It appears that the Johnson’s union did not receive the consecrated “waving of the wand”, by a justice of the peace, however was acknowledged for all time and eternity by the heavenly hosts, replete with concourses of angels.

Hasn’t anyone heard of a prairie marriage? This is done beside a covered wagon with those of the wagon company present. Without benefit of a preacher, the wagon master says a few appropriate words, the couple then spits over the left shoulder of their partner, jumps backward over the fire, and finalizes the ceremony by kissing a rattle snakes buttons. While the ceremony is more romantic under the auspices of a full prairie moon, the words and depth expressed are sincere and genuine…despite the absence of the mayor and city council.

Regardless of how the knot is tied, each needs to bear the responsibility. Good job to the Utah Supeme Commandoes.

Hi-O Silver!

Lets look at the legal ramifications of the current rendering of the law on marriage that has now been redfined not by the state legislature but by the supreme court judges.(We make the law)
First the new ruling allows the couple to decide what marriage laws will or will not apply. In this case the couple decided to allow the marriage to be dissolved using the family court and family law. Once the court has now decided that it is up to the couple to decide which marriage law is applicable then all other marriage laws may be decided by the couple irregardless of existing marriage law or status. This means that two people of any gender can now say that they are married. They now can demand insurance companies to recognize their legal relationship. They can now force other states to recognize their legal relationship. Once you allow one law to be used indiscriminately then all other laws pertaining to marriage can equally be used. Even the federal government would be forced to recognize that relationship as a marriage, this would include transferring money from one spouse to another without paying taxes for the transfer.

@r jensen. Have you even read the decision? alimony was not even part of the ruling. there was no alimony, it was a property settlement. are you related to Mr. Johnson or his lawyer? go to the website for the Utah Supreme Court and just read the decision. there is nothing far reaching about the situation except that one party lost. nothing is scary. end of story.

I have nothing to do with the case. I've been following it as a matter of interest. Do you understand law and subject jurisdiction? That's the problem with these types of things--most don't understand the implications that an upper court has on the rest of the citizens until they end up in court. Divorce law or "rules" are different from business law or "rules" and should not be intermixed. The state supreme court ruled that the judge could use divorce law in what should have been nothing more than a business relationship. So yes it is far reaching.

If you would go back and read my post you would realize that I wasn't refering to alimony in this case--I was using an example of how far reaching a ruling like this could be in other cases where divorce law could now be available for a judge to use because they rubberized bounds of subject jurisdiction.

no the judge did not use divorce law in what was a business relationship. please re-read the decision. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson used divorce law. they signed a written agreement and the court just approved their agreement. Then years later, Mr. Johnson took back his agreement and the judge said he is bound by his agreement and could not use a collateral attack to avoid his obligations. The case never went to trial. there was no trial or contention. Just regret years later.

have you read the arguments before the ruling was made? you should. so are you saying that when the court decides the grounds for any interpretation of the divorce decree--because from my understanding that's what the long dispute has been over (interpretation of the agreement--no meeting of the minds, etc.) that it should interpret it on the basis of family law or business law? family law should not be able to be used because of subject matter jurisdition. maybe the plantif is trying to get out of his agreement as you suggest or is it possible that mrs. johnson is taking liberties that that she should not from the decree that is a matter of interpretation? so should a couple not married be able to appeal to family law--even by their own choice--that they by state law are not entitled to?