Bigamy

I apologize --I have gotten so careless in understanding these postings! How could I miss such an important point!!! I totally MISSED where she said she was deceived into thinking he was a single available man!!

The posting said that she knew he was married--and he merely TOLD the officials at the "wedding" he was not. She never suggested she was deceived or led astray. My understanding was that she KNEW he was married and was "waiting" for him to get a divorce. This, in fact, makes her party to the crime of bigamy (even if it is rarely ever prosecuted).

No one is debating the fact that she needs to make SURE that there is no possible way for this to EVER be MISINTERPRETED as a legal marriage. But, if the married bigamist takes out credit cards in her name, she is NOT legally responsible for HIS fraud since ( listen carefully---!!) THEY ARE NOT AND WERE NOT AT ANY TIME LEGALLY MARRIEDDDDDDDDDD. She would be no more liable for his actions than my neighbor would be if I were to pose as him and obtain credit in his name. THEY AREN'T MARRIED. And the bigamist goes to jail for FRAUD. She is NOT responsible for credit accounts opened by a man who is NOT her husband any more than anyone is who has their identity used. If they were in a VOIDABLE "marriage", then she could be liable since the marriage is VALID. But since a bigamist "marriage" is VOID, it does not exist. She is not his legal spouse and is, therefore, NOT responsible for any debt incurred by him, forged documents not withstanding. Impress upon the poster the importance of making sure the rest of her life isn't affected by this disaster without scaring her with incorrect advice like telling her SHE is responsible for HIS debt. I challenge you to find a single court ruling that supports what you are saying. You said "It happens more often than you think". If that is so, it should be a simple matter to find a single ruling that held a woman (or man) responsible for debts incurred during a VOID marriage. GOOGLE it. Search LEXIS NEXIS--those of us that have access can have this be a learning experience for us all. Share that information with those of us less informed, won't you? If you are going to provide this poster with the information that SHE is/would be responsible for debts incurred without her knowledge during the course of a "VOID" marriage, please substantiate it with case law.

While the bigamist can make it appear as though this was a legally binding union, the legal reality is THEY were/are NOT married and never have been. Bottom line. She cannot be held responsible for HIS debt. To make it appear otherwise is egregiously irresponsible of you.

You spend a lot of time in these postings casting aspersions on other peoples answers (that have never been incorrect), yet you don't offer your own qualifications OR even the correct answer. You criticize answers quoted from authoritative legitimate sources. You criticize answers that come from someone with a substantial formal legal education because they don't have "years of practical experience". What exactly is it that allows you to give misleading and blatantly incorrect advice here??

Obviously, a caveat of ALL these message boards is that they are NOT a substitute for "REAL LIFE" legal advice. If someone is asking a question, it is insulting to them to assume they don't KNOW that this forum is not intended to be a basis for their significant life decisions. Everyone here knows to contact a local attorney in their area. To have that be the only appreciable thing you say in every posting is insulting. I have yet to see someone indicate they were going to base their entire future on the reply given by ANYONE here. Well, except Westside Law. He MAKES all the rules, yanno.

Basic law 101. When you read ANY statute, law, or court ruling, you must pay attention to the sentence structure and punctuation.

Debbi, if you will actually READ the law, it says the following:

SECTION 20-1-80:

"Bigamous marriage shall be void; (with) exceptions.

All marriages contracted while either of the parties has a former wife or husband living shall be void. PERIOD--END OF SENTENCE. This does not say an annulment is necessary. It says it is VOID. PERIOD. It never existed. If an annulment were necessary, it would read something like this: "Bigamous marriage shall be void when declared so by the order of a competent court". Obviously, it does not say this.

The rest of this section states:
"But this section shall not extend to a person whose husband or wife shall be absent for the space of five years, the one not knowing the other to be living during that time, not to any person who shall be divorced or whose first marriage shall be declared void by the sentence of a competent court."

THIS MEANS that that first part of the section that says" All marriages contracted while either of the parties has a former wife or husband living shall be void " is NOT applicable to someone whose spouse has been missing for five years (missing, possibly dead, etc). AND the above sentence does not apply to someone who is divorced OR who has had their marriage declared VOID by a competent court. This does NOT say that a bigamous marriage must be DECLARED VOID by a COMPETENT COURT.

Don't take my word for it. READ the law, pay attention to the punctuation. It is important. The first part declares bigamist marriages VOID. PERIOD. Why do you have to declare something VOID that is, as a matter of law, ALREADY non-existent? I understand choosing to go through the process for peace of mind, but it clearly is not a requirement. The next part of the statute says the first part doesn't apply in the two circumstances that follow. This means that if your spouse has been missing for five years, or if you have had your first marriage declared VOID by a court for any reason, you ARE not considered a bigmast for marrying again.

Consider your posting in this light: If it is true that a court has to RULE to declare a bigamist marriage VOID, then it is implied that a court has the ability to rule a bigamist marriage VALID. A court cannot do this since the LAW says BIGAMIST MARRIAGES ARE VOID. PERIOD. What you are saying is, for example, that it is necessary for a court to rule that bank robbery is wrong. This, obviously is not the case. Bank robbery is illegal as a matter of law---not because a court SAYS so. Do you see the parallel?? BIGAMIST marriages are VOID as a matter of law--not because a JUDGE says so.

Bottom line: The law does NOT say that a bigamist marriage must be declared VOID by the order of a court. It simply isn't written there. A bigamist marriage is void as a matter of law.

I am reminding myself again that this is a public and professional forum, and certainly not a 'Romantic Attorney' chatroom or online dating service ... nor is there any one, single, all-knowing God-like authority on the subject of law on this forum. Each of us who choose to post here are permitted to offer our experiences and knowledge (and working experience) of the law by the terms of service of this forum and we should be allowed to continue to participate (and sometimes disagree) without vituperative and clearly unprofessional attacks. (Thankfully, they're very few.) Not 2 weeks ago, other forum members were asking why there was no activity on this site and now that questions are starting to come in, once again, the responses are degenerating into near-verbal assault and censure.

Will you kindly reiterate the terms of use for this site, so that newer (than me) members can also feel free to participate?

Thank you.

I agree with you one hundred percent. Perhaps that is why I was so surprised that your very first posting to this forum criticized legally sound information that came from a legitimate source. Then, you go on to repeatedly look up and quote answers from the very same source. (Whaa--??) I agree with you--everyone is free to give any answer they see fit. But you are the only person here who has continually cast doubt on CORRECT answers because YOU think the person hasn't had "years of working experience" (when, in fact, you know nothing about who we are and what we do away from this computer.)

I have said repeatedly when answering questions on this site that I am NOT an expert in a particular area. And, any consideration of my answer should be taken lightly since I admittedly am not SURE. But, law, over all, is NOT subjective. If you offer an incorrect answer, and the law clearly states it is incorrect, be prepared for someone to point out you are giving incorrect information. NOT says me, says the LAW. YOU quoted the statute on bigamist marriages in South Carolina. Simply READ it. I am not saying the other poster is incorrect--the law says she is incorrect.

As far as the "romantic attorneys" comment? Surely you jest. I have yet to read anything remotely serious about dating, or romance. If a play on the term "legal briefs" is your idea of romance, I suggest you get out more. I suspect the most of us that post here don't even know one another's real names much less have a "romantic" interest in each other.

I expect anyone who can use case law or legal precedence to explain why my answers are incorrect to do so. I am not being sarcastic in the least. If I am giving misleading or alarming advice that is clearly against what the law has stated, I certainly hope someone would correct me. We aren't talking about what grocery store has the best bargains, or what color of shoes are best to wear with leather pants (oopsie, sorry--was leather a romantic reference!??). Some things are subjective here like "What do you think I should do about a tenant who doesn't pay rent?" Obviously, there are several LEGAL options.

However, some things do NOT have more than one correct answer. Saying a woman is responsible financially for a mans debts she was NOT legally married to is simply wrong as a matter of law. I didn't make that up---read the statute. Likewise, saying a VOID marriage is ONLY void after a judge says so is, again, incorrect. READ the statute. At no time have I furthered MY personal opinion at the disregarding of someone else's. I have simply said, in those cases where I AM certain, THIS is WHAT the LAW says. READ it for yourself.

I also notice you did not offer ANY counter comments regarding my actual "message"--only complained about my "delivery". Obviously, you agree that my answer is right ( as a matter of law--not because I "says" so ) and you just don't like having the fact that your posting was rife with incorrect legal advice brought to light. Everyone is wrong sometime--and I'll be the first to admit, I am wrong more than I should be. BUT, the difference is, I KNOW when I am wrong or uncertain, and I do not pass that advice off as sound legal advice. However, when I am right, I prove it by referring to the LAW. Not because I "says so", but because the "law" says so. I even say to posters "Do not take my advice for this. Look it up. Read it yourself."

You will not see my name in every category of this forum because I do not have any expertise in these other areas. To offer advice that I know nothing about is irresponsible. You have repeatedly answered postings that I have not replied to for one simple reason. You obviously know more about that particular area than I do. I do not feel it necessary to cast aspersions on YOUR postings by adding my two cents by saying comments you have made like : "Hey, poster, you should listen to someone with years of working experience". Or "Hey, poster, you are running the risk of talking to someone with more familiarity with WIKIPEDIA than you are the law". I just do not respond at all. Yet, you post a legally incorrect answer that you clearly know nothing about and whine to the administrator when your answer is proven to be wrong. If you don't know the answer, do what most of us do--we don't say anything at all. And we certainly don't offer repeatedly the same comments "Don't take this advice. This person doesn't have "real experience". They just look things up in Wikipedia". When has anyone done that to you? You do it repeatedly. Then cry foul. Tsk, tsk. How poorly done, my dear.

Have you ever actually BEEN in a court room? Guess what happens there? The attorney's do not whine to the judge and say, "Judgeeeeeee, tell him he isn't the only right one here!!! Whaa, whaa, whaaaa. Tell him I am ALLOWED to give incorrect and misleading advice if I wanna!!!" How patently ridiculous. Each attorney ASSUMES they are right and they argue the LAW. If one side feels the other one is incorrect, obviously THEY SAY SO. Neither side takes it personally. And, they leave the court room at the end of the day. That is how it is done. If you believe my legal proof is incorrect, spend your time defending your answer and show everyone reading these postings why my position is incorrect and yours is correct. That way, we all can learn from you. But, if your answer was incorrect, acquiesce--and learn instead of crying to the administrator.

I don't know all the answers. That is precisely why I have stated repeatedly that I have learned from those here who actually DO know more than me--those that would, in a heartbeat, correct me if I were to give blatantly incorrect legal advice. That is how I, too, learn.

Instead of defending your "right" to give misleading and incorrect advice, do what I do---say, "Wow, I didn't know that"--and learn. I do it nearly every time I sit down to this forum and read any posting that says something other than "call a local attorney".

Terms of Use

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LegalMatch insists that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. When you become a registered member of this forum you agree to these Terms of Use.

Although the administrators and moderators of the LegalMatch Free Legal Advice Forums attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, some objectionable content may get through. All messages posted are the express views of the author and LegalMatch will not be held responsible for the content of any message.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, objectionable or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. LegalMatch will make the final decision as to what they deem objectionable material. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned. The IP addresses of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing the Terms of Use. You agree that the webmaster, administrator, and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time as they see fit.

This forum exists as a source of free legal information. You agree not to use this forum to endorse, promote or recommend any particular product or service, or any manufacturer, distributor, company or service provider. Doing so will result in banning.

The general information provided by LegalMatch is intended as a service to the Internet community and should not be considered a substitute for seeking legal advice from an attorney. The law varies drastically by location and legal specialty, and LegalMatch makes no promises about the accuracy or completeness of the information provided. You should not rely on our information when making legal decisions. We recommend that you consult with a lawyer to get professional legal advice on how best to deal with your situation.

Small wonder the majority of obviously professional forum members have advised the same. I couldn't have said it better myself.

(Sorry, admin, I posted it myself.)

As I've already stated more than once, I suggest you contact an attorney in your area. I've merely posted your state's statute without intrepretation and certainly without moral judgment or indignation about your lifestyle and/or personal decisions. If you're unclear whether or not you have any further obligations, an attorney will advise you accordingly and if necessary, obtain the proper legal documentation that will protect you from any possible future litigation and/or complications. Make no mistake that the scenario I've described before has occurred to more than one person in the past (and will continue to in the future.) I can assure you that should you ever approach my particular industry and this previous marriage become known through your disclosure, a legal, recorded document absolving you of any joint responsibilities will most definitely be required. Good luck.

I don't see how a disagreement on the interpretation of a statute constitutes a breach of the terms of use of this site.

I agree that this is an internet forum and one should absolutely seek legal advice from an attorney in their area.

How about we agree to disagree and move on.

Already done. Thanks