Supreme Court considers legality of couple's marriage

[Hemidakota]

ARTICLE EXCERPT: Though the divorce was granted under the assumption that they were an actual, legal married couple, Neldon Johnson is now saying that, as the couple had never been married, the courts shouldn't have ruled on the divorce because it had been outside the court's jurisdiction.

ARTICLE LINK: Deseret News | Supreme Court considers legality of couple's marriage

[Gwen]

interesting..... if they believed there were enough of a marriage to feel the need to file for divorce (which is costly and not the easiest route to ending a relationship) then it should be recognized as such...

[Just_A_Guy]

Huh. I'd always assumed common-law marriage was a much more open-and-shut matter. Apparently the Utah Supreme Court disagrees with me (the nerve!)

[Gwen]

any state that allows common law marriages should recognize them as married. even if she wasn't "old enough" at the "start" of the marriage there were more than enough yrs together, kids and joint property after she was "old enough" to qualify them.

however, in alabama as i understand it, if a couple is common law married and have children or joint property that the courts have to help sort out in the "divorce" then they actually have to get legally married first (go down to the courthouse, get a marriage liscence, get it signed, return it, get it on public record) to get a divorce. otherwise they have to sort it out themselves. there are probably ways to apply for joint custody/visitation arrangments for couples that were never married that would be a much easier process than getting married at that point.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by Gwen

any state that allows common law marriages should recognize them as married. even if she wasn't "old enough" at the "start" of the marriage there were more than enough yrs together, kids and joint property after she was "old enough" to qualify them.

FWIW, I agree.

however, in alabama as i understand it, if a couple is common law married and have children or joint property that the courts have to help sort out in the "divorce" then they actually have to get legally married first (go down to the courthouse, get a marriage liscence, get it signed, return it, get it on public record) to get a divorce. otherwise they have to sort it out themselves. there are probably ways to apply for joint custody/visitation arrangments for couples that were never married that would be a much easier process than getting married at that point.

That would benefit the husband here, as I understand it--he's contesting the divorce because he doesn't want to pay alimony, but usually in Utah you won't pay alimony for longer than the "marriage" lasted. If they get married on Monday and divorce decree comes down on Friday--that ain't a heckuvalot of alimony.

[SMG]

The article says they got sealed in an Arizona Temple. Stupid question, but aren't sealings in LDS temples in the United States legally recognized as marriages?!

(Sorry if I'm ignorant, I haven't had much to do with temple weddings in my life, thus far.)

[Gwen]

Originally Posted by SMG

The article says they got sealed in an Arizona Temple. Stupid question, but aren't sealings in LDS temples in the United States legally recognized as marriages?!

(Sorry if I'm ignorant, I haven't had much to do with temple weddings in my life, thus far.)

if a couple is not married and is going to the temple to be sealed/married... they must get a marriage license and all other required paperwork just as any other marriage ceremony would require. they also get a living ordinance recommend that they have to take to the temple with them. the temple workers that are legally certified to do "marriages" will make sure it's all in order and everyone signs it before the sealing takes place... thus they are technically married before they are actually sealed.

if the couple is already married and want to be sealed i don't know who has the obligation to ensure that the legal marriage has been filed for first. i would imagine that responsibility falls on the bishop before issuing a living ordinance recommend. so the temple would not have checked it.

i would guess the wife could make the case (countering his claim that they "never married") with the sealing certificate. the fact that he went through that process with her is a clear sign that they were in a clear "marriage" relationship.