Posted on 01/06/2005 7:35:36 AM PST by Former Military Chick
SPOKANE -- A woman in a long lesbian relationship is suing her estranged lover to divide assets they shared or accrued while living together.
The trial started Tuesday before retired Superior Court Judge Harold Clarke II and is based on a court ruling last year that gay couples can be treated like married couples when they split up.
Roseanne Day concedes Linda Kelsh is entitled to keep her home and business assets.
Day wants part of the proceeds from the sale of undeveloped Lake Spokane property purchased in Kelsh's name while they were together, but sold after they split. Day also wants compensation for improvements she says increased the value of Kelsh's home.
The state Court of Appeals ruled last year that the legal doctrine on "meretricious" -- marriagelike -- relationships applies to same-sex couples, even though they can't legally wed in Washington.
The state Supreme Court had laid out several criteria for determining whether property acquired by unmarried couples should be divided as though they were married. One of the criteria was the couple's intent to assume marital roles that are legally denied to gays.
Day claims in court documents that she took on the role of "wife" when she moved into Kelsh's home in mid-1990.
She seeks compensation for the amount a mortgage was reduced while she lived with Kelsh, as well as for appreciation in the home's value.
In a counterclaim, Kelsh contends Day should have to reimburse her for the equivalent of 11 years of rent and other support, including much of the cost of Day's master's degree. Kelsh also seeks reimbursement for bills and personal debts.
Looks to me as if the next case is the splitup of couples shacking up--an expansion of palimony.
Which, I can't believe I'm going to say this, is pretty darn sexist.
Why don't they say: Take on the role of, "homemaker" or something similar.
In other words Gay couples are effectively married at "common law".
This could be a whole new, pardon the term, back door to gay marriage.
SO9
Could Sybil marry herself multiple times?
Hold on there - ya mean that homosexual marriages might result in...DIVORCES?? I thought they told us it would IMPROVE marriage! I'm shocked and surprised they lied to us (sarc).
Wow - just think how additionally confusing it will be for the children. Oh dear. Note that in lefty language every issue can be whittled down to "for the children" except this one.
Hell hath no fury...imagine, if you will, a divorce with TWO scorned women.
The irony is delicious.
Not guilty plea entered in attack
By Matthew Bruun WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
LEOMINSTER, MA — A 73-year-old woman charged with punching, choking and assaulting her 66-year-old partner with a screwdriver pleaded not guilty to the charges yesterday in Leominster District Court.
Judge John J. Curran Jr. released Phyllis Jones of 56 Blossom St. on personal recognizance and ordered her to return to court Jan. 26 for a pretrial hearing.
Police were called to Ms. Jones’ home after a hung-up 911 call Saturday afternoon, according to court records. When dispatchers called the house back, the person who answered the phone would not confirm any information, and a woman could be heard screaming in the background, according to police reports.
Officer Michael Deluca said Ms. Jones answered the door when he arrived Saturday afternoon after the call.
“We are having trouble with the phone; everything is fine,” Ms. Jones said, according to Officer Deluca’s report. Ms. Jones, who used a walker for assistance, allowed police to enter her home.
Officer Deluca said a 66-year-old woman, who later said she had been Ms. Jones’ partner for 30 years, was folding laundry when officers arrived.
“This female was reluctant to turn and face me,” Officer Deluca wrote. “I asked (the woman) if everything was fine. (The woman) turned to me and stated, ‘She’s out of control.’ ”
The woman was sobbing and trembling, Officer Deluca said, and he saw she had a deep dark bruise to her right eye, as well as dark bruising on her throat. He asked the woman how she had been bruised.
“I don’t know,” she said. “I must have fallen.”
During further questioning in another room, the woman said Ms. Jones had come at her with a screwdriver. She had a red abrasion on her right arm, Officer Deluca said, and he called for an ambulance after seeing her injuries.
“As I questioned (the woman), Ms. Jones was yelling from within the kitchen,” Officer Deluca’s report continued. Ms. Jones yelled for the woman to tell the police there was a problem with the telephone so they could leave.
The woman said she and Ms. Jones had been partners for 30 years and had lived together for 25 years. She said Ms. Jones had assaulted her two days earlier, punching her face and choking her.
“I made a mistake so she choked me,” she said.
The screwdriver assault had taken place that afternoon, she continued, after which she had called 911. Ms. Jones had grabbed the telephone from her hand and had thrown it to the ground, she told police.
When the ambulance arrived Saturday afternoon, the woman declined medical treatment, according to Officer Deluca’s report. Police then placed Ms. Jones under arrest.
“What’s going on?” Ms. Jones asked, before asking her partner, “What did you tell them?”
The woman told police she did not want a restraining order filed against Ms. Jones and asked if she could pick her up at the police station. Officer Deluca said he advised her against taking such action.
Later, Officer Deluca said, he advised Elder Abuse Services of the case and a caseworker told him the woman had agreed to file a restraining order against Ms. Jones.
A better legal approach would be to require anyone who expects to "share" property to acquire it in, or transfer it into, the names of everyone who is to be entitled to a share, spelling out the percentages to which each co-owner is entitled, regardless of marital status. Everyone, married or not, should assume that they have an ownership interest in those assets, and ONLY those assets, for which the title or other legal evidence of ownership shows they have an ownership interest.
To be fair it should be noted that over 50% of all marriages end in divorce.
And, over 50% of divorces end in marriage.
There is likely no back door available to do common law marriages because (I am not exactly sure in Wahington) most States in the Union have a public policy that forbids common law marriage. Thus, Courts will usually not uphold property division situations like this because it will effectuate a common law marriage. Second, the statistics some people are giving on divorce rates are a little inflated. The actual figure is more like 40% divorce rate.
For starters, it's just wonderful to see grown women acting like victims and not standing up for themselves no matter WHO is beating on them. /sarcasm
"But what about all of the personal property couples acquire over the years that doesn't have any kind of recorded title?"
How about putting important and pricey things (jewelery, undeveloped land, furs, stock certificates, etc.) on personal insurance policies? That's how I accounted for things that I would've otherwise lost in a divorce. I mean, they were mine, I purchased them, I insured them and every payment was documented with a check signed by ME. He couldn't touch most items when he tried to clean me out.
Kinda sad that I ended up in a situation like that, but thank goodness I was smart and protected myself from financial harm in the long run.
Gay or straight, a girl's gotta look out for herself in this world. Spouses lie and spouses die. That's a fact of Life.
Most of the conflicts are over the bigger stuff. As for the miscellaneous stuff, if you want to keep it, make sure and keep the receipts and other records showing you bought it with your own credit card or check, or received it as a personal gift form so-and-so, inherited it from so-and-so, etc. The most practical plan would be a contract indicating that anything not recorded as belonging to one or the other, is owned 50-50 -- then major items, such as valuable jewelry, art, antiques, high-end electronics, etc. can be itemized as they are acquired, whenever the intent is not that they will be owned 50-50. I'm sick of people -- married or not -- expecting the taxpayer-funded court system to sort out the details of their personal affairs, because they couldn't be bothered to do it themselves, or because they stubbornly insisted on living in a fantasyland where they'll be madly in love forever and don't need to think about things like who owns what.
Sure, I get yer point. I submit that divorces are caused by liberal attitudes toward marriage. Don't know if there are stats, but you can bet that the weaker marriages are a result of weak characters getting married for the wrong reasons, which indicates a heavy porportion of lefties.
"How about putting important and pricey things (jewelery, undeveloped land, furs, stock certificates, etc.) on personal insurance policies? That's how I accounted for things that I would've otherwise lost in a divorce. I mean, they were mine, I purchased them, I insured them and every payment was documented with a check signed by ME. He couldn't touch most items when he tried to clean me out."
In my state and most others, if those things were purchased during the marriage with marital funds (which would include your paycheck), they'd have to be split 50-50 in the divorce regardless of whose name was on the title or the insurance policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.