If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PennLive)   Man gets out of his marriage by convincing the judge he isn't married. Ergo: the tag   ( pennlive.com) divider line
    More: Hero, Marriage, common law marriage, health insurance coverage, Miller, Brown, Carl A. Solano, marriage certificate, Susquehanna County judge  
•       •       •

10023 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Nov 2017 at 12:20 AM (36 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-11-08 09:55:34 PM  
This guy ISSUES man-cards.
 
2017-11-08 10:08:25 PM  
If you didn't write it down, it didn't happen.
 
2017-11-09 12:27:09 AM  
Oh noes! She'll have to earn her own money.. how scary for her.
 
2017-11-09 12:28:12 AM  
Penn = northern Florida.

Seriously this shiat
 
2017-11-09 12:29:12 AM  

dv-ous: If you didn't write it down, it didn't happen.


Don't even have to write it down in some states but you do have to speak the words with proper intent at the very least.
 
2017-11-09 12:31:40 AM  
If there ain't no ring, it ain't no thing.
 
2017-11-09 12:33:52 AM  
Sweet, as a Pennsylvanian in an 11 year relationship (No kids, and no sex for 6+ months) this was relevant to my interests.
 
2017-11-09 12:37:38 AM  
It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that ring...doo wap doo wap doo wap doo wap
 
2017-11-09 12:41:09 AM  

enthralledgeishagirl: It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that ring...doo wap doo wap doo wap doo wap


no hymen, no diamond
 
2017-11-09 12:41:46 AM  
It's that damn law stuff again.
 
2017-11-09 12:42:40 AM  
In before a Farker refers to her as a breeder
 
2017-11-09 12:47:19 AM  
Hmmm.  She didn't want to get married, but when they broke up she wanted alimony.

/What is wrong with this picture?
 
2017-11-09 12:47:30 AM  
For Farkers in Canada, note that the rules are different here. Given the relationship described in the article, you would be common-law spouses in Canada, except for Quebec, and would be splitting communal property and the matrimonial home, no matter who bought it.
 
2017-11-09 12:48:21 AM  
22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.
 
2017-11-09 12:49:42 AM  

sardonicobserver: Hmmm.  She didn't want to get married, but when they broke up she wanted alimony.

/What is wrong with this picture?


She was stupid enough to think that their actions together over the decades mattered more than the piece of paper, especially since they were already doing everything together as husband and wife. Including filing taxes together.

In another state, she would have gotten something.
 
2017-11-09 12:57:14 AM  

Kirablue42: 22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.


According to TFA, he wanted to marry her. She said no. Repeatedly. It's right there in the lede. Does 'no' have some definition of which I am not aware? Admittedly, I've always been a bit fuzzy on that word's meaning.
 
2017-11-09 01:01:27 AM  

Madman drummers bummers: According to TFA, he wanted to marry her. She said no. Repeatedly. It's right there in the lede. Does 'no' have some definition of which I am not aware? Admittedly, I've always been a bit fuzzy on that word's meaning.


Shhh.  That doesn't fit with their narrative that men always make out like bandits when it comes to spousal (and especially) child support/custody.
 
2017-11-09 01:06:48 AM  
You are NOT the husband!
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-11-09 01:07:25 AM  
Maybe if she wanted alimony she should have, you know, actually marry the fark.
 
2017-11-09 01:22:16 AM  

Kirablue42: sardonicobserver: Hmmm.  She didn't want to get married, but when they broke up she wanted alimony.

/What is wrong with this picture?

She was stupid enough to think that their actions together over the decades mattered more than the piece of paper, especially since they were already doing everything together as husband and wife. Including filing taxes together.

In another state, she would have gotten something.


Her actions over the decades showed that she repeatedly refused to marry him. And then tried to cash in. F**k that, f**k her, and... well, you get it. With a rusty chainsaw.
 
2017-11-09 01:28:54 AM  

bababa: For Farkers in Canada, note that the rules are different here. Given the relationship described in the article, you would be common-law spouses in Canada, except for Quebec, and would be splitting communal property and the matrimonial home, no matter who bought it.


This. The govt came looking for money one day because they decided i had been married the previous couple of years and that changed a few things on taxes and rebates.

/guess I shiuld have been richer and funnelled money into Bermuda or some place because that's ok somehow
 
2017-11-09 01:36:22 AM  

bababa: For Farkers in Canada, note that the rules are different here. Given the relationship described in the article, you would be common-law spouses in Canada, except for Quebec, and would be splitting communal property and the matrimonial home, no matter who bought it.


In Newfoundland would you still be brother and sister?
 
2017-11-09 01:39:48 AM  

Kirablue42: sardonicobserver: Hmmm.  She didn't want to get married, but when they broke up she wanted alimony.

/What is wrong with this picture?

She was stupid enough to think that their actions together over the decades mattered more than the piece of paper, especially since they were already doing everything together as husband and wife. Including filing taxes together.

In another state, she would have gotten something.


She was never willing to commit, but her court filing was based on a commitment from her partner that she was never willing to reciprocate.  As I understand alimony, it's compensation for what one partner gives up, like a career and education and stuff that makes you have an income, as a result of committing to the partner instead of supporting yourself.  In other words, an extension of the business side of a marriage contract after the personal side is ended.

They had a kid together and apparently raised it, and that would be enough in a lot of states to define a common law marriage.  But not every marriage dissolution serves as a basis for alimony, spousal compensation, or whatever, but without a marriage, it's hard.

If I were that guy, I would want a prenup.
 
2017-11-09 02:02:43 AM  

Kirablue42: 22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.


Know how I know you didn't RTFA?
Know how I know you're a woman?
Know how I know you're prone to making coonty assumptions?
 
2017-11-09 02:10:15 AM  

Kirablue42: 22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.


"Male patriarchal system"? The goddamned family courts!?

Your post was in jest, yes?
 
2017-11-09 02:54:59 AM  
So, he traded alimony by admitting to fraud? Congratulations, your money's going to the insurance company and the IRS instead of your kid's college fund. Way to go!
 
2017-11-09 03:01:17 AM  

aagrajag: Kirablue42: 22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.

"Male patriarchal system"? The goddamned family courts!?

Your post was in jest, yes
?


It sounds more convincing in its original Russian.

As for TFA, it is worth considering what this woman sacrificed (career-wise) seeing to this man and his needs for all those years.

Who knows what she would have accomplished had she been left otherwise unencumbered?
 
2017-11-09 03:07:37 AM  

sex_and_drugs_for_ian: aagrajag: Kirablue42: 22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.

"Male patriarchal system"? The goddamned family courts!?

Your post was in jest, yes?

It sounds more convincing in its original Russian.

As for TFA, it is worth considering what this woman sacrificed (career-wise) seeing to this man and his needs for all those years.

Who knows what she would have accomplished had she been left otherwise unencumbered?


Nothing?
 
2017-11-09 03:24:01 AM  

mrschwen: sex_and_drugs_for_ian: aagrajag: Kirablue42: 22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.

"Male patriarchal system"? The goddamned family courts!?

Your post was in jest, yes?

It sounds more convincing in its original Russian.

As for TFA, it is worth considering what this woman sacrificed (career-wise) seeing to this man and his needs for all those years.

Who knows what she would have accomplished had she been left otherwise unencumbered?

Nothing?


Hurtful.
 
2017-11-09 04:14:15 AM  

bababa: For Farkers in Canada, note that the rules are different here. Given the relationship described in the article, you would be common-law spouses in Canada, except for Quebec, and would be splitting communal property and the matrimonial home, no matter who bought it.


Canadian common law marriage blows.
 
2017-11-09 04:14:48 AM  

Kirablue42: 22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.


Read the article, he tried to marry her. She refused.
 
2017-11-09 04:16:48 AM  

sardonicobserver: Kirablue42: sardonicobserver: Hmmm.  She didn't want to get married, but when they broke up she wanted alimony.

/What is wrong with this picture?

She was stupid enough to think that their actions together over the decades mattered more than the piece of paper, especially since they were already doing everything together as husband and wife. Including filing taxes together.

In another state, she would have gotten something.

She was never willing to commit, but her court filing was based on a commitment from her partner that she was never willing to reciprocate.  As I understand alimony, it's compensation for what one partner gives up, like a career and education and stuff that makes you have an income, as a result of committing to the partner instead of supporting yourself.  In other words, an extension of the business side of a marriage contract after the personal side is ended.

They had a kid together and apparently raised it, and that would be enough in a lot of states to define a common law marriage.  But not every marriage dissolution serves as a basis for alimony, spousal compensation, or whatever, but without a marriage, it's hard.

If I were that guy, I would want a prenup.


Pre nups get tossed by judges all the time.
 
2017-11-09 04:19:40 AM  

sex_and_drugs_for_ian: aagrajag: Kirablue42: 22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.

"Male patriarchal system"? The goddamned family courts!?

Your post was in jest, yes?

It sounds more convincing in its original Russian.

As for TFA, it is worth considering what this woman sacrificed (career-wise) seeing to this man and his needs for all those years.

Who knows what she would have accomplished had she been left otherwise unencumbered?


She refused to marry him, multiple times but had no problem living with him and taking his resources then wanted to discard him and cash in. The man was willing to give her legal protection under their state's marriage law. Woman is an idiot and has only herself to blame.

An attempt to blame men or cast this woman's woes on men is stupid.
 
2017-11-09 05:31:36 AM  
Reminds me of when I was in Vegas getting married, at the courthouse, filling out the form on what looked like a school field trip permission slip. I remarked to my soon to be Wife, it can't be legal, they gave me a pencil, with no eraser, to fill out the form. When we were getting ready to buy our first home and my Wife couldn't find outr marriage certificate, I exclaimed "I'm free"! She found it. Darn.
It's like Bob Rooney on "Married, with Children": How did the meeting with the marriage counselor go? Bad, the marriage is legal.
 
2017-11-09 06:01:27 AM  

neeners: So, he traded alimony by admitting to fraud? Congratulations, your money's going to the insurance company and the IRS instead of your kid's college fund. Way to go!


The kid is 22. Probably a little late for a college fund and I'm sure paying fines, back taxes and late fees will be cheaper than monthly payments to this chick forever.
 
2017-11-09 06:59:17 AM  

Kirablue42: 22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.


6 out of 35 with 2 being your own.  Let's check back later to see if this trend continues.
 
2017-11-09 07:01:55 AM  

debug: neeners: So, he traded alimony by admitting to fraud? Congratulations, your money's going to the insurance company and the IRS instead of your kid's college fund. Way to go!

The kid is 22. Probably a little late for a college fund and I'm sure paying fines, back taxes and late fees will be cheaper than monthly payments to this chick forever.


Especially since she's jointly liable for anything deemed fraud.
 
2017-11-09 07:13:38 AM  
Excuse me, Do you know where Bagel Street is?
Susquehanna Hat Co
Youtube THZV5g1CNZM
 
2017-11-09 07:22:38 AM  

neeners: So, he traded alimony by admitting to fraud? Congratulations, your money's going to the insurance company and the IRS instead of your kid's college fund. Way to go!


IRS can't do shiat.  They've been working on ONE audit now for the last 27 years and can't seem to finish it!
 
2017-11-09 08:11:30 AM  
Brown testified that he identified Miller as his wife only to get the health insurance coverage.

Isn't health insurance only available to spouses or dependents? Meh. Probably listed himself as a dependent.
 
2017-11-09 08:12:02 AM  

sardonicobserver: Kirablue42: sardonicobserver: Hmmm.  She didn't want to get married, but when they broke up she wanted alimony.

/What is wrong with this picture?

She was stupid enough to think that their actions together over the decades mattered more than the piece of paper, especially since they were already doing everything together as husband and wife. Including filing taxes together.

In another state, she would have gotten something.

She was never willing to commit, but her court filing was based on a commitment from her partner that she was never willing to reciprocate.  As I understand alimony, it's compensation for what one partner gives up, like a career and education and stuff that makes you have an income, as a result of committing to the partner instead of supporting yourself.  In other words, an extension of the business side of a marriage contract after the personal side is ended.

They had a kid together and apparently raised it, and that would be enough in a lot of states to define a common law marriage.  But not every marriage dissolution serves as a basis for alimony, spousal compensation, or whatever, but without a marriage, it's hard.

If I were that guy, I would want a prenup.


I've heard CA has palimony, but most states do not have such nonsense, which is why she was fighting for alimony.  MI sure doesn't have palimony, nor common-law marriages, this I know for a fact.  If one chooses to not work, and stay in the home, when they split, that person is simply viewed as unemployed.  Without legal marriage, alimony isn't considered.  Property is in only one name, stays in that name, shared property is split.  Only child support is discussed where applicable.

/there was a case that appeared to be palimony in MI
//however, that case involved a written contract, not just the woman living with the guy in hopes of a long term relationship.
///it was the written contract that won her money, still no palimony law
 
2017-11-09 08:18:48 AM  

Harry Freakstorm: Brown testified that he identified Miller as his wife only to get the health insurance coverage.

Isn't health insurance only available to spouses or dependents? Meh. Probably listed himself as a dependent.


How often when filling out insurance information, do you show a marriage license?  We often take it for granted, but they don't really check that stuff.  I found out the hard way when my wife's insurance from work denied me coverage because some cubicle dweller punched me in the system as a common-law spouse.  Since MI doesn't have such law, I went without coverage for a year.  We tried to fix it during the year, but even after faxing them the marriage license, they stated I had to wait till the enrollment period to come around again.  The insurance company didn't care, my wife was paying family coverage, so it only saved them money.  Good thing I didn't get hurt that year.

/corporations suck
//to anyone who wants to point out corporations are people, corporations are a group of evil people who pass the buck to avoid personal accountability
///corporations are evil.
 
2017-11-09 08:30:36 AM  

sex_and_drugs_for_ian: aagrajag: Kirablue42: 22 years? She put up with the asshole who wouldn't actually marry her for that long? She should have known the male patriarchial system would fark her over on that one.

"Male patriarchal system"? The goddamned family courts!?

Your post was in jest, yes?

It sounds more convincing in its original Russian.

As for TFA, it is worth considering what this woman sacrificed (career-wise) seeing to this man and his needs for all those years.

Who knows what she would have accomplished had she been left otherwise unencumbered?


This is some exquisite trolling. Well done.
 
2017-11-09 08:44:50 AM  
Poor guy's gonna starve now
 
2017-11-09 08:57:35 AM  
What I want to know is why femenisrs aren't waging a war on alimony. You know ... equality and all
 
2017-11-09 09:52:48 AM  

Mister Buttons: Sweet, as a Pennsylvanian in an 11 year relationship (No kids, and no sex for 6+ months) this was relevant to my interests.


Get a piece on the side. You don't have to put up with that.
 
2017-11-09 10:09:45 AM  

bababa: For Farkers in Canada, note that the rules are different here. Given the relationship described in the article, you would be common-law spouses in Canada, except for Quebec, and would be splitting communal property and the matrimonial home, no matter who bought it.


And Nova Scotia, where for a common law relationship to be recognized by the province a form needs to be on file with Vital Statistics.
 
2017-11-09 10:11:22 AM  
Buttercup: I got married. I didn't want to. It all happened so fast.
Westley: It never happened.
Buttercup: What?
Westley: It never happened.
Buttercup: But it did. I was there. This old man said, "Man and wife."
Westley: Did you say, "I do"?
Buttercup[confused] No. We sort of skipped that part.
Westley: Then you're not married. If you didn't say it, you didn't do it.
 
2017-11-09 10:28:52 AM  

rcain: What I want to know is why femenisrs aren't waging a war on alimony. You know ... equality and all


We are. If you hadn't noticed, permanent alimony is gone in the progressive states. That's primarily due to femenisrm breaking the assumption that women are only housewives.

/femensrsmns?
 
2017-11-09 10:29:38 AM  

lack of warmth: MI sure doesn't have palimony, nor common-law marriages, this I know for a fact.


They abolished common law marriage in 1957, but still recognize common-law marriages from other states. So, not really gone, just mostly.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report