BG> Doesn't matter these days (and after my first marriage,
BG> I started believing in long engagements), after 2 years
BG> of living together IN SIN , common-law wives have
BG> the same rights as those who are legally married anyway.

RS> That depends on the state, its a state matter with defactos.

BG> Yeah, I was replying with the NSW law in the context of Paul's living there

RS> Thats certainly not current NSW law.

BG> Are you sure about that?

Yep, that recent spectacular court case is the most obvious evidence of that.

BG> My information is that Qld is looking at following NSW's example
BG> in giving defactos of more than 2 years equal rights re property
BG> settlements etc., same as your normal everyday divorce.

Welp, no one told that NSW trial about that.

BG> but up here, defactos have no such rights, and have no
BG> legal claim on property in the case of separation, unless
BG> they have documentary evidence of their own personal financial
BG> contribution to said property.  The period is irrelevant.

RS> Thats just as true here, and in fact there has just been
RS> a massive legal bunfight about one particular example,
RS> with a real legal as one party too. The woman lost.

BG> Is that right?  That wasn't those 2 dykes, was it?

Nope, forget the names now, one relatively well known woman,
actor from memory, the other one a male lawyer, rather well
up in the legal hierarchy, tho not on the judicial side.

Its probably findable on the internet too.
@EOT:

---