Does any state force recognition of common law marriage on couples if they do not want it? I will use Texas as an example, but I'd be interested in any others... Per this link, a couple is considered married under common law in Texas if they: 1.) Agree to be married, 2.) Live together as a couple, and 3.) Tell others (&quot;hold themselves out&quot;) that they are married It also states that in order to get out of such a marriage: &quot;Common law marriages in Texas have the same legal status as a ceremonial marriage.&quot; And &quot;if the common law marriage doesn’t work out, you’ll have to get a formal divorce to end it. However, to get a divorce: ... the couple must first prove to the court that they were married. The person that first files papers with the court has to prove that there was a common law marriage. Recognizing that if there are children involved, or if one partner contests the divorce, things get messy and need to be sorted out legally. However, what if there are no children, and the couple mutually decide to not follow through with formal wedding plans, and instead agree to simply part ways and pretend that nothing happened? There is no paper trail. No proof that anything ever happened except perhaps jointly signed leases showing that at one point they lived together. No reason for either to assert a claim over the other for reasons of alimony, custody, or asset disputes. Neither has any interest or desire in attempting to prove to the state that they were married under common law. Really their situation is no different from any other co-habitating and/or engaged couple who later split up before completing an intended marriage ceremony. To title question then, would the state have any interest or legal right to assert that having once met conditions that would allow them to be considered married, that they are in fact still married despite their objections to that legal status and to being characterized as such? Could both later legally claim to be single and never married? Bonus points for addressing how &quot;just kidding&quot; or &quot;I was lying&quot; could be used to counter the issue of &quot;holding out&quot;. Also bonus points for addressing how taking the 5th might assessed in answering questions around status, particularly in the context of applying for a marriage license later to someone else.
would the state have any interest or legal right to assert that having once met conditions that would allow them to be considered married, that they are in fact still married despite their objections to that legal status and to being characterized as such? Could both later legally claim to be single and never married? Yes. For example, the state could prosecute someone for bigamy if there was a common law marriage that was not dissolved and someone remarried. There are all sorts of other circumstances (e.g. paternity, government benefit eligibility, taxation) where the government might want to prove that you have a common law marriage as well. It is certainly possible to ignore the law and not get caught. But, generally, the agreement of the parties requirement for common law marriage means it doesn't happen very often. And, usually, at least one person in a married couple has an economic incentive to not ignore the existence of a marriage even if the couple had no children. Even if they don't have much in the way of assets at the time they separate, twenty years later there might be considerable assets acquired by the parties during marriage and a presumption of substantial alimony and inheritance rights. So someone who was O.K. with &quot;forgetting it&quot; when they were 23 might change their mind when they are 43 or when you are dead and a probate case is pending. There is no statute of limitations to establish the existence of a common law marriage. In short, ignoring the existence of a common law marriage is high risk and low reward. If there is ambiguity, one quick and dirty process as opposed to filing an action for annulment, is to file an action for divorce, apprise the court of the circumstances, and have it authoritatively dismiss the divorce case on the merits by ruling that the parties aren't married I've done that for a client once, in the face of fairly strong evidence that they were married, when the parties to the divorce case both told the court under oath that they never believed themselves to be married to each other at any time. One countervailing force is that issuance of a marriage license to someone creates a rebuttable presumption that they were not married at the time it was issued. This can be overcome with a showing of the existence of a common law marriage, but it makes the &quot;proving a negative&quot; of non-marriage easier, especially in cases when the parties are now dead and this is necessary to know for paternity or inheritance purposes. Finding proof of even a marriage license marriage (or a divorce) can be difficult as lots and lots of jurisdictions can get you married or divorced (not all in the U.S.A.), but there isn't a national comprehensive index of marriages in the United States. For what it is worth, France solves this problem by requiring copies of marriage certificates, divorce decrees, and death certificates to be filed where someone was born, but common law countries never had a comparable low tech system to solve the indexing problem. Also bonus points for addressing how taking the 5th might assessed in answering questions around status, particularly in the context of applying for a marriage license later to someone else. There is nothing special about it. You can refuse to testify about possible prior common law marriages if you subsequently have a marriage certificate issued. Keep in mind that you can only plead the 5th without consequences in a criminal case. In a civil matter, you can plead the 5th but this usually results in an adverse inference for purposes of the civil case that you committed the crime implicated by your refusal to testify on that ground.
The law does not criminalize "having more than 1 legal spouse", it criminalizes specific behavior. The polygamy statute is here. It says Every one who (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. That is, if you behave like you're married to multiple women, you've committed a crime.
The general rule is that the ability to have a valid divorce has nothing to do with where the marriage was entered into, or the citizenship of the parties. Usually, any jurisdiction with sufficient contacts with either member of the couple has jurisdiction to enter a divorce. Hence, generally, people get divorced in the place that they live. The problem in this scenario is step 5. I think that it is highly likely that the U.S. Embassy is simply wrong, unless there is some serious irregularity in step 4. An annulment after four years of marriage, as opposed to a divorce, is highly irregular and would not be allowed in the vast majority of jurisdictions. But, maybe there are facts and circumstances that make it otherwise. This fact pattern, while it on one hand sounds like a "for a friend" question based on real facts, also sounds like some important details that may be outcome determinative have been omitted.
These situations do come up (and incidentally, this is nothing new, it has been a difficult and recurring legal issue since at least the 18th century), and they really suck to be in, and often there aren't easy answers. There are a lot of legal doctrines out there that are designed to avoid a hard clash of conflicting court orders and to prevent someone from suffering contempt of court sanctions when they are in this bind. Generally, litigants caught in this bind look for these outs. For example, when particular property or records are at issue, often the person in question will "interplead" the property placing it in the jurisdiction of a court to resolve and out of their hands. There is a doctrine called in custodia legis which provides that once something is in the custody of a court that another court may not exercise jurisdiction over it. The entire sub-field of civil procedure pertaining to jurisdiction and venue is designed to avoid these conflicts. U.S. law has a whole sub-field a statutes and legal doctrines like the Rooker-Feldman doctrine designed to prevent these conflicts from coming up when they arise between federal and state courts. One of the most important legal doctrines is that a person cannot be punished for contempt of court for failing to do something that the person being held in contempt of court does not have the ability to do. One argument, which doesn't always work, is that once you are subject to a legally binding court order that has been served upon you that you may not legally defy that court order in order to follow the order of a court which cannot override the decisions of the court issuing the first order. Usually, contempt citations are directed at individual employees or agents rather than at entities. For example, in a dispute over Indian Trust Funds against the United States government, contempt citations were brought against the Secretary of Interior personally and could have sent that individual to jail for not complying. One way the an individual can get out of the order relating to an employment or professional duty is to resign from office and thus deprive oneself of the ability to perform the order. But, the short answer is that there is no one simple legal rule for resolving these situations, and the litigants stuck in these situations look for every available legal argument to resolve it until it is resolved.
I think it is not possible to answer the question as is, but this document from the Indian courts lays out the relevant legal variables. A major split is between Sharers and Residuaries: a Sharers are all related by blood. A secondary split relates to testate vs. intestate succession (was there a will?). There are also special rules for West Bengal, Chennai and Bombay. A widow is generally entitled to a share of her husband's property, but if the husband dies before his father, the husband does not have his father's property. But then, if a Muslim marries under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, they are not treated legally as Muslim for purposes of inheritance. All told, it is most likely that the widow has no legal claim on the property, but still a person should engage an attorney who can assess the particulars of the case.
I am a notary public in Vermont and have had to deal with people who had name variations. Readers of Law StackExchange like to citations to reliable sources; I'm not going to do that, just describe my experience. Many states do indeed allow a person to adopt a new name through usage. Government agencies and large commercial agencies don't like that, and they can and do thwart the law by imposing their own administrative procedures. If you don't like their procedures, fine, give a lawyer a $20,000 retainer, have the lawyer sue, and wait three years. And after spending all that money, the court might find that although it isn't a crime for a person to change their name by usage, there is no law requiring the administrative agency to accept it. If you don't have tens of thousands of dollars to waste or years to wait, you have two choices. Get married, and use the marriage license as evidence of your name change. The format of marriage licenses is different in every state, so how well this works depends on the state. The other option is to get a court-ordered name change.
It may &quot;seem[] normative&quot; that &quot;a law cannot enumerate any specific persons or companies to be included or excluded from its provisions.&quot; But in fact it is not generally the case. There are various kinds of laws that traditionally have named specific people or entities to define their scope. These include: In nineteenth-century England, a divorce could only be granted by a specific law passed by Parliament, naming the persons to be divorced. I am not sure when the practice stopped. In the US during the nineteenth century (and I think the early twentieth century also) a corporation was normally formed by a specific law granting a charter of incorporation to the named company. In the US during the period 1866-1870 there were a number of laws passed permitting former Confederate officers and officials who were presented by the 14th amendment from holding office under the US or any state to hold office again, as the amendment provides for. Eventually Congress passed a more general amnesty. It was once common for the English Parliament to pass bills of attainder. These were legislative declarations that a particular person was guilty of a particular crime, generally without any trial or other process. Sometimes the specific sentence was also imposed by such a bill. This was sufficiently resented that the US Constitution specifically forbids Congress or any state from passing such a bill. It was once common for actual laws to grant payments to specific people for specific purposes. This is no longer common, but there is no legal bar to it in either the UK or the US that I know of. The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 contains a provision enabling Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children to continue to receive royalties for performances and adaptations, publications and broadcast of &quot;Peter Pan&quot; whose author, J. M. Barrie, had given his copyright to the hospital in 1929, later confirmed in his will. This right is to persist even after the expiration of ordinary copyright for the play, but is not a full grant of copyright. Laws or ordinances invoking eminent domain to take the property of particular individuals for particular purposes are common, mostly at the local level. In the US, the Equal Protection Clause generally forbids laws which treat people, or groups of people, differently unless there is some rational basis for the distinction. But in some cases a plausible basis is asserted and such laws are passed.
It is illegal to marry while you are already married This is the crime of bigamy in all 50 states. A marriage ends with the death of one of the couple, a divorce or (in some very limited circumstances) an annulment. The US will recognise any of these wherever they happen so it’s your choice whether you get divorced in your home country or the US. By the way, don’t cause the death of your husband, that’s also illegal.