Divorce on paper ??

[athena53]

Apparently, they talked to their priest and came to the realization that if they were "married" in the church in a spiritually valid ceremony, but never applied for or filed a marriage license, the great State of New York wouldn't recognize that they were married!

I'm very surprised by this. I'd heard (from clergy) that it was illegal for them to perform a valid marriage ceremony and not report it to the state. My grandpa tried when he remarried after being widowed and the priest wouldn't do it, so they got a church ceremony and she lost her widow's pension from her first marriage.

DH and I ARE deeply religious and our union in the eyes of God and the church is for keeps. We never wanted the state involved in our religious rite in the first place and if it were advantageous to get the state out of the equation we would.

 

[Senator]

I'm very surprised by this. I'd heard (from clergy) that it was illegal for them to perform a valid marriage ceremony and not report it to the state. My grandpa tried when he remarried after being widowed and the priest wouldn't do it, so they got a church ceremony and she lost her widow's pension from her first marriage.

DH and I ARE deeply religious and our union in the eyes of God and the church is for keeps. We never wanted the state involved in our religious rite in the first place and if it were advantageous to get the state out of the equation we would.

I think anyone can send in $15 and get a certificate that allows someone to perform a marriage. I am not 100% sure the process, but it doesn't have to be in a church, or even religious.

 

[Big_Hitter]

reminds me of this court case involving pilots


BROWN V. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: IS A FRAUDULENT DIVORCE A VALID WAY FOR A PLAN PARTICIPANT TO MANIPULATE THE PROVISIONS OF ERISA? | Smith | Journal of Law and Family Studies

 

[Big_Hitter]

I think anyone can send in $15 and get a certificate that allows someone to perform a marriage. I am not 100% sure the process, but it doesn't have to be in a church, or even religious.

you certainly can in Colorado

 

[JustCurious]

You go to the courts and file for it.

Apparently filing for "legal separation" is a state specific thing and not recognized in some states.

Florida Legal Separation Vs. Divorce | LegalZoom: Legal Info

 

[COcheesehead]

Why would this not be considered fraud?

 

[Senator]

Why would this not be considered fraud?

No. Divorce is legal, even if for convenience. Just as marriages for convenience are. Or not getting married for convenience.

As long as any questions to any forms for assistance are answered truthfully, there is no fraud. Fraud is lying about your situation, or not being truthful.

 

[athena53]

I think anyone can send in $15 and get a certificate that allows someone to perform a marriage. I am not 100% sure the process, but it doesn't have to be in a church, or even religious.

I agree and I have no problem with a civil rite with no religious context. What I oppose is the state attaching obligations to a religious rite. I'd love to see a system in which you MUST have a civil rite in order for your marriage to be recognized by the state, but a religious rite alone has no legal implications. You want the legal/state implications, you go to a notary afterwards. If you don't, you get the religious ceremony alone.

 

[MRG]

Why would this not be considered fraud?

People actually do divorce and reconcile, I've known three couples that did. Two remarried the other didn't.

I also know a guy who divorced so his "ex" would get half his profit sharing. They cashed out of 50% of all his retirement paying the 10% penalty! They planned it, Big_Hitter's post talked to that situation.

 

[MichaelB]

Probably best to stick to the original thread topic and skip the church - state discussion.

 

[COcheesehead]

No. Divorce is legal, even if for convenience. Just as marriages for convenience are. Or not getting married for convenience.

As long as any questions to any forms for assistance are answered truthfully, there is no fraud. Fraud is lying about your situation, or not being truthful.

Really, really fine line here. I think if you do it to gain government benefits as the OP stated, then you could say a fraud has taken place. Just my opinion.

 

[FUEGO]

I proposed this to my wife and she declined my proposal. I didn't do it on one knee, so perhaps that was the missing ingredient this time around, as last time I bent on one knee for her she said "yes".

 

[Senator]

Really, really fine line here. I think if you do it to gain government benefits as the OP stated, then you could say a fraud has taken place. Just my opinion.

If the program allows it, it's OK. The five year look back period for medicaid being one. People transfer assets all the time and wait 5 years.

Most government agencies have thought about most of the ways to get around the system. The marriage/divorce thing has been thought out many times.

 

[gayl]

But OP is concerned about the cost of CA tx. I don't propose divorcing, transferring assets, then waiting 5 yrs for tx

 

[aja8888]

But OP is concerned about the cost of CA tx. I don't propose divorcing, transferring assets, then waiting 5 yrs for tx

Enlighten me, as I can't decipher all your abbreviations in posts: what does "CA tx" stand for?

 

[gayl]

Sorry.

CA = cancer, OP has Basal Cell cancer

Tx= treatment

 

[Sunset]

I'm not going to agree about the benefits of marriage for taxes.

When you have a tax loss, you can carry over and use $3,000 to deduct against income the next year, when you are single AND when married.
So a single "couple" gets 2 x $3,000 tax loss usage per year.

Plus a single "couple" can manage their stock accounts to not have any wash rules.
Explanation of how it works:
Person A sells stock X at a loss, and at the same time Person B buys the stock back.
They end up with exactly the same stock as they started.
This generates a loss for them to deduct against income, but a married couple cannot do this as it counts as no loss.

Now, should I ask my DW for a divorce, frankly no as I'm afraid she would take me up on it

 

[gayl]

So being married is bad if you want stock market losses?!?! Frankly, never planned on that and in worst years was barely over 3k (but then I usually only have around 300 trades a year)

 

[rodi]

My dad and step mom were *not* married for financial reasons. Dad had a widowers pension from my mom. Stepmom had a widows SS claim from her previous husband.

But they were very committed, and wanted as many of the legal entitlements as they could have. Fortunately California has/had a registered domestic partnership. At the time it was only available to same sex couples and seniors. (Apparently the state recognized the pension issue.) They were in their 70's.

They chose to also express vows of commitment in front of family and friends. Stepmom is an atheist - so no clergy involved. But they both felt it was important to express their commitment to each other in front of both families and their friends.

Getting married would have cost them $3500/month. Dad was in love and would have married here - even with the financial consequences... but this was a good compromise for them.

As to the OP. If you're only reason to divorce is to get free insurance, I'd think it could be construed as fraud. I would definitely consult a lawyer before pursuing this or it could be an expensive experiment.

 

[ivinsfan]

If you are running out of money and can't afford good insurance, it would be to your advantage to spend less, take from you IRA to buy insurance or since you left the workforce at 52, return and make some money to buy insurance.

Divorce?that is the nuclear option and I do think it would be fraud. With that kind of income you can pay your own way on the insurance front.

 

[LakeRat1]

I really got confused with all the religion thrown in....... I was just looking to reduce the amount we spend on Health Care Insurance and the deductible......

I have an appointment set to see a dr again, hopeful they can give me an estimate of what this will cost

 

[SecondCor521]

I agree and I have no problem with a civil rite with no religious context. What I oppose is the state attaching obligations to a religious rite.

A friend's father married his new wife in a church ceremony to keep his kids off their backs about living in sin. They remain unmarried in the eyes of the state because she has a pension of some type that she loses if she were to remarry. This is in Idaho; other states/countries may differ on what is possible.

 

[meierlde]

I agree and I have no problem with a civil rite with no religious context. What I oppose is the state attaching obligations to a religious rite. I'd love to see a system in which you MUST have a civil rite in order for your marriage to be recognized by the state, but a religious rite alone has no legal implications. You want the legal/state implications, you go to a notary afterwards. If you don't, you get the religious ceremony alone.

Then try the various countries that engaged in DE-clericalization in the early 20th century, e.g. France, Mexico and Germany, where any religious ceremony has no legal significance if married in that country. Actually I would go a bit further and say that completing the marriage license application and having the license issued means you are married, later ceremonies being entirely the couples choice.

 

[Chuckanut]

The IRS lost when they couldn't show that the couple were legally married! Apparently, they talked to their priest and came to the realization that if they were "married" in the church in a spiritually valid ceremony, but never applied for or filed a marriage license, the great State of New York wouldn't recognize that they were married!

In many states that is grounds for the minister to be stripped of his right to 'legally' marry anybody, even those who want to be legally married.

 

[rodi]

It occurred to me that this might all be moot - common law marriages... But then I looked up the states the OP lives in, and neither recognize common law marriages.