Can a person sign away alimony after marriage Hypothetical question: Mary and Sam have been married for 20 years. During the marriage both persons commit adultery and reconcile at different stages of the marriage. Let's also say there is still one minor child in the marriage. Let's also say that Mary has been abused both mentally and physically at times during the marriage. Sam has always controlled all the money and Mary isn't even on any bank accounts. Sam and Mary get into a fight one day and Sam orders Mary to leave the house. So Mary leaves the house and takes the child with her. The two stay off and on with friends for a month or two. But Mary controls no money. Mary calls Sam one day and asks Sam to please pay for her an apartment; deposit and a month of rent for Mary and the child. Sam says he would do it as long as Mary signs a paper stating that is all he owes her and all is even at that point. If a divorce has NOT yet been filed; Would such a contract be binding? After 20 some years of marriage, can all of the alimony and child support which might be owed just be written off by Mary simply signing a contract that states this so that she can have a place of her own to stay for a while? I have done a little research but I'm not a lawyer, and I don't see how one could sign away child support at all, but I could see how alimony might be signed away, but would it be "reasonable" in the courts eyes being that Mary feels duress because she's basically homeless and has been staying with friends for a few months. I think after 15 to 20 years of marriage there would be a lot of alimony owed and a few thousand dollars for an apartment can't make up for it.
It depends. An agreement of the type you describe is called a post-nuptial agreement or marital agreement. These agreements are not prohibited, but are subject to heightened scrutiny. In determining if it is valid, courts consider financial disclosure, an opportunity to consult a lawyer, and a voluntary non-coerced agreement in writing, as well as a requirement that it not be unconscionable when signed or when enforced. Strictly speaking, while alimony can be eliminated in this manner and divorce attorneys' fees and property settlements can be managed in this manner, child support cannot be eliminated in this manner, although some agreement as to what constitutes payment in kind of a child support obligation that is currently existing can be reached. Modification of child support requires court approval since the child's rights are implicated and the child is not competent to agree. In the circumstances you describe, I do not think that any of the agreement would be upheld as it would likely be found to be flawed both substantively and in the process by which it was agreed. This is particularly true because New Jersey is quite hostile to post-nuptial agreements relative to most states and generally only permits them when there is evidence that the marriage was nearly moribund or the agreement was entered into in connection with a reconciliation. In general, some of the considerations that apply in New Jersey are that: If the agreement was oral and enforcement is sought of a promise to convey real estate, there must also be compliance with the statute of frauds. The court may have to resolve disputes over the terms of the agreement. The court must consider whether the circumstances under which the agreement was entered into were fair to the party charged. The terms of the agreement must have been conscionable when the agreement was made. The party seeking enforcement must have acted in good faith. Changed circumstances must not have rendered literal enforcement inequitable. This approach remains good law in New Jersey and has been enforced in a manner that is quite skeptical of these agreements. See, e.g., Kriss v. Kriss, A-3255-15T3, 2018 WL 1145753 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Mar. 5, 2018). Many others states are more inclined to uphold such agreements.
Close family members can stay as long as the tenant wants The tenant is entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of the property which includes living with their close relatives - spouse, de facto and children would all qualify; parents and siblings might as well. It doesn't matter if these people are children or adults. You cannot contract out of this as you are not allowed to discriminate in housing based on family situation. The tenant is also entitled to have non-relative house guests stay for as long as is reasonable. A month or so would be reasonable; longer than that and it starts to look like a sub-lease for which they would need your permission. There is generally a limit under texas law of 3 adults per bedroom but that doesn't seem to be an issue here. I also can't see where having a non-resident's mail delivered to the property is something you have a say about. I'd be very careful if I were you because it seems like you are on the wrong side of the law here.
A brief explanation follows. The Code of Hammurabi articulates the first form of alimony: If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart In the Middle Ages, English ecclesiastical law mandated that a husband still has an obligation to support his wife even when they are separated (recall that divorce was not possible). This carried over to the US. As discussed in this article, there was a view (articulated in Bradwell v. Illinois by Justice Bradley that &quot;Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender .... The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator&quot;. The basic rationale at the time was that the wife had a right to support as a consequence of the marriage, and would continue to exercise that right were it not for the conduct of the husband (by law, someone was at fault, and if it was the husband, he would have to compensate his wife). When no-fault divorce became a possibility in the late 60's, concepts of alimony were re-worked, so that alimony was no (usually) longer a permanent property right, and in its place there developed a desideratum of &quot;maintenance&quot; allowing the spouse with lesser economic power to maintain a diminishing property right. See this 1973 version of Washington's replacement-for-alimony law, which includes &quot;The standard of living established during the marriage&quot; as the law now does. Because this is established by state law in the US, and state legislatures aren't infamous about keeping close track of legislative debates, I don't think there are any surviving records of the rationale of the author of these bills. In fact, this law was drafted a few years earlier by The Uniform Law Commission – there may be some record of their discussion. [This article][5], written after the law was passed, takes note of the history of contractual concepts being applied to marriage (e.g. the territorial legislature enacted a measure that &quot;marriage is declared to be a civil contract&quot;), from which perspective one expects there to be compensation for breach of contract.
I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer. You do not cite a jurisdiction so this makes it very difficult to get a definitive answer. What follows is for Australia but the general principles are common law and would be applicable to other common law jurisdictions except where statues apply or case law has diverged. In the first instance, it seems that you were not party to any arrangement to pay for the electricity. So on the face of it you are not party to any contract requiring you to pay. Even if there was such an agreement: family, domestic, social and voluntary agreements (which this would be) are presumed not to be intended to legally bind the participants. Whether this presumption would be overturned would depend on the specific facts. On the face of it, there is no legal obligation to pay. Your options are: Do nothing; this puts the ball in their court, they can: Forget about it (it would then be over) Attempt to sue you with little prospect of success (which would cost them and you a lot more than $50 irrespective of who won) Do something illegal like beating you up (you really need to assess this risk) Tell everyone they know (in person and on social media) what a skiving prick you are (you could probably sue them for damages but that's not really going to happen, is it?) Pay them what they are asking Offer to pay them something less. Option 1 is likely to break any relationship you have with the person, Option 2 is likely to preserve it and Option 3 could go either way. Ultimately, like most legal questions, this is not about the law; it's about relationships ... broken ones mostly.
IANAL. I am not your lawyer. Assuming that they bought the house together, and are both on the title, your step-father would, as a surviving owner, take sole possession of the house (and it wound not enter your mother's estate). If she bought the house before they married and he moved in, and he is not on the title, it would theoretically enter her estate, but there may be additional rules as it is his residence. As your mother lived in NY, NY law governs her estate. If the estate is worth less than $50,000, you would get nothing. If the estate is worth more than $50,000, he would get $50,000 plus half of the remainder, with the other half of the remainder being split between your mother's children. You don't mention any siblings, so I would assume you don't have any, in which case you should receive: (Estate_Value - $50,000)/2. Source: https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/WhenSomeoneDies/intestacy.shtml
Short Answer Is there a comprehensive list of rights that partners with children gain when they get married (or lose when they get divorced)? No. There are lots, and lot, and lots of things in the law that depend upon marital status or involve rights gained in connection with marriage. These are scattered across the law and no one primary source or official government source compiles them all in one place. It isn't possible to comprehensively list them all in one answer in this forum, due to restrictions of answer writer time and length. You could easily write an 80 page law review article on the subject if you wanted to be really thorough and you also wanted to cover all U.K. jurisdictions. Many, but not all, of the rights and legal consequences associated with marriage can be created with agreements and legal instruments outside of marriage. But for an unmarried couple, this has to be done piecemeal in order to deviate from the default rules in the absence of marriage one by one. In contrast, marriage has many legal consequences for spouses that arise by default without additional documentation, and there are a few rights and legal consequences of marriage that can not be conferred upon someone in any other way than marriage. Nonetheless, this answer highlights the more notable and important distinctions below. Caveats Regarding The Scope Of the Answer Rights v. Consequences It is more helpful to think in terms of &quot;legal consequences incident to marriage&quot; rather than &quot;marital rights&quot; as some of the legal consequences of marriage are less natural to explain in terms of rights. U.K. Law Is Mostly Not Uniform On This Subject Unless otherwise clearly indicated, I am referring solely to the law of England and Wales. Most laws related to rights incident to marriage are not uniform in the U.K. Instead, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales, each have their own separate laws on these subjects, although the differences between them are more differences of detail than of broad conceptual structure at a &quot;forest&quot; level. All references to England below are to England and Wales whether this is expressly stated or not. Who Is Compared? The comparison I am making is generally between married people and unmarried cohabitants, as the law that applies between total strangers isn't really analogous in most cases. (Even though it is theoretically possible to have a married couple that never significantly cohabitates.) While the question is specific to a couple with children, formal rights in relation to the children of a couple are only slightly different in theory. But, as discussed below, the limited size of child support payments make the differences between married couples with and without children in divorce cases, significant anyway because there is a right to property division and spousal maintenance in addition to child support for married couples but not for unmarried couples. Marriage v. Civil Partnerships In England In most, if not all, circumstances, couples in a &quot;civil partnership&quot; receive the same legal treatment as married couples in English law, and you may assume that they are mostly equivalent for the purposes described below. England also has same sex marriage, but a significant number of civil partnerships, most entered into between 2004 when they become available and 2013 when same sex marriage was allowed, remain in existence and have not been converted into marriages. Getting Married And Ending A Marriage Common Law Marriage v. Formal Marriage Despite being the source of the doctrine historically, England no longer has &quot;common law marriage&quot;. Common law marriage was abolished in England in the Marriage Act (1753), although it wasn't as clearly established as it is now in common law marriage jurisdictions even before then. An unmarried couple can now become a legally married couple in England and Wales only by filling out the proper government forms and presenting them to the proper government officials. According to the same source, Scotland began formal marriage registration in 1855 (which was previously documents only by the church) and once had four forms of &quot;irregular marriage&quot;, three of which were abolished prospectively (i.e. new marriages could not be formed in this way) in 1940, and the last of which was abolished prospectively in 2006. Common law marriage outside of England and Wales, when it did exist elsewhere in the British Commonwealth, was or became closer to the Scots law practice than the historical English practice. Other parts of the British Commonwealth and United Kingdom mostly also abolished common law marriage, but did so later than England did. India, however, has a legal doctrine quite similar to common law marriage today as a legacy of British law, for members of some religions, and Australia, Canada, and Ireland have recognized somewhat similar concepts by statute or local case law innovations. Notably, common law marriage had not been abolished in the American colonies at the time that the United States gained independence in 1776 (although it took a while for the British to diplomatically recognize this political reality). In the time period from 1753 to 2006, the formalities required to get married were more lax in Scotland than in England, so it was common in that time period for couples for whom the formalities of the English marriage system were inconvenient to travel to Scotland to marry. In addition to the reality of this situation, this is a prominent feature in many fictional novels set in this time period. As a result, there is an ample case law in English and Scottish courts over choice of law issues related to this reality. This case law was referred to regularly in the late 19th century and early 20th century by U.S. courts addressing choice of law issues related to marriage and divorce, particularly in cases involving marriages and divorces entered into in Mexico and the Caribbean in an effort to evade legal restrictions present in the home states of the couples involved. In most circumstances, however, the law of England and Wales will recognize the validity of a marriage which was legally entered into under the law of the place where the marriage where it was entered into, even if that marriage didn't comply with English law regarding what is necessary to get married. Terminating A Marriage In England Then And Now Also, like all other common law jurisdictions (and so far as I know, all other civil law jurisdictions), but unlike the situations in Islamic law, it is impossible in England and Wales to end a validly existing marriage by any means other than the death of a spouse or a court order decreeing that the marriage has been dissolved. Also, if a couple was not validly married, even though there could reasons someone might think that they were validly married, a court can clarify the situation by annulling a putative marriage. Historically, since England Christianized for the last time (after becoming almost entirely pagan after Anglo-Saxon invasions by the end of the 6th century that had been preceded by partial Christianization). The restoration of Christianity in England began about 600 CE, and had run its course well before the Norman invasion of 1066 CE, which is at the root of the modern English legal system. Divorce was then prohibited in England until the Anglican Church broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in 1532 in the English Reformation. The first Christian era marriage in England terminated by divorce since long before the Norman invasion in England was in the case of King Henry VIII's marriage to Anne which was terminated in 1552. The next divorce in England took place no earlier than 1670 (although there were a handful of aristocratic annulments in that time period), and divorce was only available by parliamentary decree until 1857 when the Matrimonial Causes Act (1857) was enacted, with just 324 divorces granted by parliament from 1670 to 1857. The same source notes that: Only four of the 324 cases were brought by women. A husband needed to prove adultery to obtain a divorce. By contrast, a wife was required to prove adultery and some other especially aggravating circumstance to have the same grounds. Over the years, women learned that brutality, rape, desertion and financial chicanery did not count. Under the 1857 Act divorce could be granted on the grounds of marital fault, for which adultery by itself sufficed for a man seeking a divorce and adultery by a husband together with cruelty, or rape and/or incest of someone else was required for a wife seeking a judicial divorce. Then according to the same source: A private members’ bill in 1923 made it easier for women to petition for divorce for adultery – but it still had to be proved. In 1937, the law was changed and divorce was allowed on other grounds, including drunkenness, insanity and desertion, although there was a bar on petitions for the first three years of the marriage. Divorce remained particularly rare even after judicial divorce was authorized, especially prior to the 1923 reforms in English divorce law. In the first decade of the 20th century, there was just one divorce for every 450 marriages. . . . it was not until the Divorce Reform Act 1969 that they reached the level we are familiar with today. This legislation marked an important shift not merely because it added further grounds for divorce, on the basis of two years' separation with the other party's consent, or five years' without, but because it removed the concept of ‘matrimonial offences' and hence the idea of divorce as a remedy for the innocent against the guilty. Today, there are just two marriages for every divorce each year. Finally, starting in April 2022 the divorce regime there became an almost fully no-fault divorce regime. So, basically, either member of a married couple can unilaterally divorce at will, without that five year waiting period required from 1969 to 2021, but with still having the economic consequences discussed below. Ummarried Couples Compared Unmarried couples can break up at will, and court intervention is only available to resolve specific disputes over title to specific property, child custody type issues, and child support type issues, which married couples if they broke up would address in a divorce case. If unmarried couples resolve all issues of property division, child custody, and child support by mutual agreement without ever having resorted to court intervention, court involvement in their break up is not required at all. As noted here: In response to the increase in cohabitation, several legal changes were made in the UK in recent years. In Scotland, the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 provides cohabitants with some limited rights. [ed. England does not currently have similar legislation in force.] In addition, since 2003 in England and Wales, 2002 in Northern Ireland, and 2006 in Scotland, an unmarried father has parental responsibility if he is listed on the birth certificate. . . . While 49% of cohabiting couples that aren't married or in a civil partnership believe they have rights under a 'common law marriage', common law marriage has no legal standing in England and Wales. Cohabiting couples aren't automatic beneficiaries or have protections regarding non-joint bank accounts, mortgages, tenancies or pensions, unless the other person is explicitly mentioned as a joint account holder or in the terms as a beneficiary, for example in the event of death. Notable Legal Implications Of Marriage In England and Wales I'll list only a sampling of the legal incidents of marriage which are now, or have historically been, among the most important (some of which have been repealed but are mentioned because many people are not aware that the historic legal situation is no longer the case): Paternity Marriage creates a strong legal presumption (which is in some cases rebuttable) that children born to a married woman are children of her husband. Until officially declared otherwise, a man is deemed to be a child’s legal father if he is married to the mother at the time of the child’s birth[.] Rape England no longer recognizes an immunity between spouses for rape. Spousal rape is a crime in England just as it would be for non-married cohabitants. Duty of Support A spouse has a duty to economically support a current spouse (beyond child support), while unmarried cohabitants do not have a duty of support to each other. If your partner won't support you, you can ask a court to order them to support you. When it was nearly impossible or at least very difficult to get legally divorced, this right was used in about a dozen cases a year almost always by women, often in the form of a lawsuit seeking divortium a mensa et thoro (&quot;separation from bed and board&quot;) in the canon law courts of the Anglican Church, usually on the basis of adultery or life threatening cruelty and usually with the woman receiving regular spousal maintenance but losing all custody of her children as a result unless there were extenuating circumstances. These days, most spouses who are not being supported simply get divorced and receive spousal maintenance and a share of marital property (and possibly child support as well), instead, so the right to bring a lawsuit to enforce this right has largely fallen into dessitude and is rarely utilized in practice. The doctrine is mostly used to justify policies in other areas of the law that assume spouses provide economic support for each other (which they usually do even though this right is rarely enforced with lawsuits). Property Rights During Marriage During a marriage, the property rights of spouses are essentially identical to those of non-spouse cohabitants. This is as a result of the Married Women's Property Act (1870) which abolished the doctrine of coverture (which treated a husband and wife as a single economic unit managed by the husband) in England and Wales. During the marriage title to property controls who owns and controls property in England and Wales for the vast majority of purposes for members of the married couple, just as it does for unmarried cohabiting couples, even though title may be disregarded for married couples in a divorce, and in some cases in connection with inheritance rights. As discussed in Part 9 below, England and Wales does not have a &quot;community property&quot; regime that is effective during the course of a marriage (although it might recognize the &quot;community property&quot; character of property acquired during a marriage while the couple lived in a community property jurisdiction for some purposes. Income Taxation Marriage has income tax implications in he U.K. If you’re married or in a civil partnership You may be able to claim Marriage Allowance to reduce your partner’s tax if your income is less than the standard Personal Allowance. Government Benefits, Pensions, And Employee Benefits Marriage is relevant to rights under some government benefit including &quot;welfare&quot;, programs, but the details are too numerous to set forth here. Likewise, marital status is frequently relevant to the rules for public and private pension plans, and sometimes for other public and private sector employee benefit plans as well. One isolated area where cohabitation can confer rights similar to marriage, however, is in English Social Security laws: Social security law Living together has been part of the law since the beginning of the modern welfare state in 1948. The term &quot;Living together as husband and wife&quot; was introduced from 4 April 1977 to mean the same as &quot;cohabiting with a man as his wife&quot; which was used before that date. The term is now &quot;living together as a married couple&quot;. To be regarded as &quot;living together as a married couple&quot; or cohabitating, there are various questions to consider. The question of cohabitation should take into consideration all the six questions, and looking at the relationship as a whole. Additional details on the six factor test for recognition of an unmarried couple for English Social Security benefits purposes can be found here. Court Testimony Historically, England had a privilege that excluded from evidence in court cases certain testimony from spouses against each other and certain testimony about confidential communications between spouses. This has now been abolished. The form of privilege, restricting the admissibility into evidence of communications between spouses during a marriage, existed in English law from 1853 until it was abolished in 1968 (for civil cases) and in 1984 (for criminal cases). The testimonial part of the spousal privilege was mostly abolished in the late 1800s with further clarification through 1984 in certain domestic violence settings. Immigration Spousal status is relevant to an immigration application when one spouse is a British subject and the other is not. Also known as a UK marriage visa, a spouse visa allows married partners of UK citizens to immigrate to the UK because they are married to someone who is 'settled in the UK' - i.e. a person who is ordinarily resident in the UK and has no immigration restrictions on how long they can stay in the UK. Rights Upon A Divorce Or Breakup As a practical matter, differing rights if the couple breaks up are the single most important difference between being a cohabiting unmarried couple with kids and a married couple with kids. The difference matters because the less affluent member of the couple gets a much better deal upon a break up if the couple is married than if they couple is not married. The strong rights of a less affluent member of a couple primarily matter because this makes it economically safer for a woman in married couple who has kids to sacrifice her own economic prospects to focus on those kids than for a woman who is an unmarried cohabitant. This also matters because the economic incentive for a husband not to divorce a wife who is economically dependent upon him is much stronger than the economic incentive for an unmarried cohabitant boyfriend/father to not break up with an unmarried cohabitant girlfriend/mother. Upon divorce, a divorced spouse is entitled to share of the couple's property and/or spousal maintenance (a.k.a. alimony) in excess of child support, which are far in excess of the rights of a non-spouse cohabitant, especially in the case of a long marriage in which the couple's wealth has grown during the marriage. Non-spousal cohabitants who split up divide their property based upon title to property and have no spousal maintenance obligations to each other so only child support (if applicable) is at issue. Child support and custody are still present between unmarried cohabitants or co-parents who have children together. In the arena of property division, England does not have what in the U.S. is called &quot;community property&quot;. There is, instead, a distinction between marital property acquired during the marriage and separate property, and England and Wales has an &quot;equitable division&quot; regime rather than one in which there is a fixed percentage right of each spouse, and marital property rights remain inchoate (rather than vested and presenting existing) until death or divorce. If a property settlement is not reached by mutual agreement a court considers factors including: Each partner’s individual assets Contributions to the marriage or civil partnership, both financially and emotionally Time out of the workplace Earning capacity Standard of living before the break-up Requirements such as catering for disabilities Length of marriage How old you both are In practice, the fact that a couple has children together also tends to influence what is equitable in a property division. The presence or absence of spousal maintenance greatly impacts the practical effect of a split up for a couple with children who are married v. a couple with children who are not married. A marital property settlement and spousal maintenance in addition to child support makes life a lot easier for a less affluent ex-spouse than child support alone. Inheritance Upon death, a surviving spouse has inheritance rights different from and greater than a non-spouse cohabitant, in the estate of the deceased spouse. Generally speaking, if there is no will, a spouse has significant inheritance rights, while a non-spouse cohabitant does not. There are also legal limitations on the extent to which a spouse can be denied an inheritance even if there is a will. While in general, a spouse has testamentary freedom to disinherit a spouse in English law (unlike the vqst majority of U.S. and civil law jurisdictions), in England, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act (1975) &quot;sets out categories of people that have the legal standing to challenge another person's Will on the basis that they have not been left reasonable financial provision.&quot; Spouses also have greater rights at death than unmarried cohabitants with regard to management of a probate estate of a decedent partner and disposition of a partner's body, at least in the absence of estate planning documents to the contrary. Transfers to a spouse at death are also exempt from inheritance taxation. Marital status is also highly relevant in England to the rules for succession to aristocratic titles and for the titles of someone who is married to someone with an aristocratic title. While English law normally makes little or no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children (which is a function of whether their parents were married), in the area of succession to aristocratic titles and eligibility for titles that imply marriage to someone with an aristocratic title (like the former Queen's Consort), the distinction between married couples and their children, and unmarried couples and their children is very important. Incapacity Unlike most U.S. jurisdictions, marriage does not, in and of itself, grant strong rights relative to a cohabitating partner, to a role in medical decision making or guardianship proceedings in England. An adult's &quot;next of kin&quot; is generally their spouse or civil partnership partner, which is not automatic in the case of a cohabitating partner. But, the rights associated with next of kin status are generally limited to notice or information until another basis to be involved in decision-making is established: As far as the law is concerned next of kin means nothing with the exception of children aged under 18. The next of kin of a child under 18 may be legally entitled to make decisions for or on behalf of the child. The term usually means your nearest blood relative. In the case of a married couple or a civil partnership it usually means their husband or wife. Next of kin is a title that can be given, by you, to anyone from your partner to blood relatives and even friends. It is also possible to name more than one person as your next of kin. This is a title that is primarily used in order for emergency services to know who to keep informed about an individual’s condition and treatment. This means that you have no legal rights as a result of this title. This can create difficulties if you haven’t put additional measures in place to manage your relative or loved one’s affairs. If you do not have any legal rights, you cannot make decisions on their behalf. Similarly, pretty much anyone can be appointed to be an adult's guardian in England, with no absolute priority for a spouse or a blood family member over a cohabitating partner or any other person expressing interest in the care of an incapacitated person. Marriage is just one factor among many considered in a fairly wholistic manner when deciding between competing applications to serve as someone's guardian. Cohabitation Post-Divorce By A Formerly Married Couple A married couple with children that gets divorced and then cohabits post-divorce are not on quite the same footing as a cohabiting couple with children who have never married. The starting point in such a couple for the rights of the former spouses vis-a-vis each other begins with the divorce decree and any incorporated settlement between the spouses in connection with the divorce. Provisions related to child custody and child support may be modified over time as the children grow and circumstances change. In some unusual but not unheard of circumstances, spousal support duties arising from the prior marriage can be imposed long after the divorce even if spousal support was not immediately imposed at the time of the divorce or was only nominal at that time. Provisions related to court ordered child custody arrangements, child support, and spousal support normally continue in force until they are spent by the their own terms (e.g. when the children become adults or spousal support established for a fixed time period ends), are modified by a later court order, or the couple remarries. It is uncommon, but not completely unheard of, for the children of a couple for whom child custody arrangements have been imposed between unmarried coparents or in a divorce at one point, to ever cease to be subject to some sort of court order related to child custody. Court orders related to children or spousal maintenance cannot normally be adjusted by mutual agreement after a divorce without court intervention. Remarriage will generally abrogate and cause to become void all provisions in a divorce decree, settlement, or post-divorce court order related to the children, and all provisions with spousal maintenance, while the property ownership and debt obligations of the parties to the remarriage restart from scratch at whatever state they were in immediately prior to the remarriage. Sometimes a remarriage after a divorce legitimatizes the paternity of children born between the marriages. First Marriages Of A Cohabiting Couple With Children When a cohabiting couple with children marry, they have all of the incidents of a married couple. Sometimes, but not always, this will help establish the father's paternity of their children. Court orders related to the custody and child support of their shared children will usually be dissolved (I don't know if any formal legal action is required to do this or not). Property acquired by the couple prior to marrying while cohabiting will generally be separate property owned by the spouse who was in title to that property prior to getting married. In a subsequent divorce of that couple, the length of the marriage will not include the full time of their cohabitation, but their cohabitation prior to marriage is a factor which a divorce judge is not prohibited from considering entirely in making an equitable division of marital property and in awarding spousal maintenance.
I do not have a written agreement of her saying she will pay 1/5 of utilities cost. Can I still take her to small claims court to get my money back? Yes. This type of agreements does not need to be in writing. Proving the other roommates' timely payments is strong evidence that also she is under a similar agreement. You did not elaborate on the form of her refusals. If these are stated in writing, they might evidence elements that further weaken her legal position. For instance, these might reflect her inconsistencies and/or bad faith. Even if you were unable (which seems very unlikely) to prove that there is an agreement to the effect of splitting costs, you might still prevail on grounds of equity.
I can't help with the relationship issues: here are the legal issues. She legally owns 5% of the house and you own 95% I presume that the loan agreement is a contract between you, her and the lender so removing her name from the loan is at the discretion of the lender, not you or her. I would be very surprised if the lender would allow this without totally refinancing the loan. Whatever arrangements you had with your sister are probably not enforceable because the presumption is that arrangements between family members are not legally enforceable contracts. Unless you can provide evidence that both of you intended to create legally binding obligations for what you assert (like a signed document) then what you say is just hot air. Legally, neither of you have the power to get her name off the loan. As a co-owner she is entitled to live in the property rent free. Each of you is jointly (i.e. together) and severally (i.e. individually) liable for making the loan repayments - in what proportion that should be done is a matter for you two to sort out - the lender doesn't care who pays so long as they get paid. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tenancy_in_common