
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Common-Law Marriage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.coffeechick.com/main/2008/11/common-law-marriage/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.coffeechick.com/main/2008/11/common-law-marriage</link>
	<description>A Blog Without A Tagline.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:38:50 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nobiwan</title>
		<link>http://www.coffeechick.com/main/2008/11/common-law-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-25074</link>
		<dc:creator>Nobiwan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coffeechick.com/main/?p=925#comment-25074</guid>
		<description>The whole thing is just so silly. I&#039;ve known people who had to deal with it, and it&#039;s always been an idiotic process. I&#039;m starting to think the lack of definitive legislation is exactly why. That resource is exactly what you will get to if you go through the self-help stuff on the Colorado courts website. So, you know, I&#039;m relatively sure it should be all in there and up to date. I suppose you could look for legal precedent since that&#039;s half of how most court cases are resolved if they aren&#039;t totally obvious as being stupid in the first place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The whole thing is just so silly. I've known people who had to deal with it, and it's always been an idiotic process. I'm starting to think the lack of definitive legislation is exactly why. That resource is exactly what you will get to if you go through the self-help stuff on the Colorado courts website. So, you know, I'm relatively sure it should be all in there and up to date. I suppose you could look for legal precedent since that's half of how most court cases are resolved if they aren't totally obvious as being stupid in the first place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hunter</title>
		<link>http://www.coffeechick.com/main/2008/11/common-law-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-25018</link>
		<dc:creator>Hunter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:02:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coffeechick.com/main/?p=925#comment-25018</guid>
		<description>Yeah, this again.  And it&#039;s good to know that you&#039;ve got the same problem I&#039;ve got [regarding that one reference link].  I planned on digging a little deeper when I was writing this, but stuff got in the way.  I&#039;ve already done a bit of digging into the laws in other states, and found some rather entertaining court cases in...I think it was Alabama.  They were...the word stupid doesn&#039;t cover it.  It went something like: boy meets girl, falls in love, marries, and reproduces with her.  Boy and Girl fall out of love, divorce but get back together.  Somewhere in there, they bought a house as husband and wife, and continued to pay the bills as husband and wife, even after the divorce.  Also, they continued to live together and sleep together -- in that adult sort of way.  So, naturally -- and it must&#039;ve been Alabama -- they ran afoul of the common law marriage thing. 

I think I&#039;ll do more digging today if this idea I woke up with dies the usual horrible death....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, this again.  And it's good to know that you've got the same problem I've got [regarding that one reference link].  I planned on digging a little deeper when I was writing this, but stuff got in the way.  I've already done a bit of digging into the laws in other states, and found some rather entertaining court cases in...I think it was Alabama.  They were...the word stupid doesn't cover it.  It went something like: boy meets girl, falls in love, marries, and reproduces with her.  Boy and Girl fall out of love, divorce but get back together.  Somewhere in there, they bought a house as husband and wife, and continued to pay the bills as husband and wife, even after the divorce.  Also, they continued to live together and sleep together -- in that adult sort of way.  So, naturally -- and it must've been Alabama -- they ran afoul of the common law marriage thing. </p>
<p>I think I'll do more digging today if this idea I woke up with dies the usual horrible death....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nobiwan</title>
		<link>http://www.coffeechick.com/main/2008/11/common-law-marriage/comment-page-1#comment-25007</link>
		<dc:creator>Nobiwan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 04:07:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coffeechick.com/main/?p=925#comment-25007</guid>
		<description>This again? Well, lucky for you that since I&#039;ve had so very many dealings with domestic law, I happen to have Colorado Revised Statutes bookmarked. I tried to find a definitive description of what constitutes a common law marriage, but I couldn&#039;t. Which kind of irks me, but beyond the idea that maybe I&#039;m just blind, if they really didn&#039;t define it much then what the fuck? That could get really ugly, y&#039;know?

Anywho, here&#039;s the link. it&#039;s under Colorado Revised Statutes, Domestic Matters, (14 - whatever - whatever).
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&amp;fn=main-h.htm&amp;cp=

I have no idea if that&#039;s going to hyperlink automatically or not.

Enjoi!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This again? Well, lucky for you that since I've had so very many dealings with domestic law, I happen to have Colorado Revised Statutes bookmarked. I tried to find a definitive description of what constitutes a common law marriage, but I couldn't. Which kind of irks me, but beyond the idea that maybe I'm just blind, if they really didn't define it much then what the fuck? That could get really ugly, y'know?</p>
<p>Anywho, here's the link. it's under Colorado Revised Statutes, Domestic Matters, (14 - whatever - whatever).<br />
<a href="http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&amp;fn=main-h.htm&amp;cp=" rel="nofollow">http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&amp;fn=main-h.htm&amp;cp=</a></p>
<p>I have no idea if that's going to hyperlink automatically or not.</p>
<p>Enjoi!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
