When partner actually does leave you for OW

[Mimolicious]

She too simply trusted a man who told her he loved her, and the promises he made her. How is she any "less than" than you are? :confused:

 

 

And how is the now W any better than the exbabymomma?

 

FA, so you're saying that because someone has a marriage certificate they are more significant and valuable than a GF, Fiancee, OW, Baby Momma? Interesting...I actually agree (besides Baby Momma). I am sure that your MM's W would also agree.

[porcupine]

sorry I thread-jacked beagle.........listen, you're right to feel sympathy for your X's son...but at the end of the day, you're not his mother. He has a step-mom and let's hope that she's as good to him as you were.

 

Your X wasn't the man for you. It hurts to think you put yourself in a position to be hurt by him, if we knew now what we knew then.......

 

Don't waste hate on his wife, don't waste hate on him. It's wasted emotion you should jealously keep to yourself.

[kuma]

It was his home when I moved in and after discussing finances and paperwork, my name being added to it and blah, blah, blah... it did become ours...

 

But still... no matter to him.

 

Did he put your name on the title?

[BeagleGal]

That's it - I do have a boy-sized hole in my life. His father, unfortunately, is irresponsible and selfish. Now that I've had this time and space away from him, I can see him for who he is now. I just feel horrible for this boy.

To be honest, I almost felt and maybe still feel to some degree a sense of responsibility for him. When the boy got sick shortly after we broke up and I was still living at the house, I went out, bought him meds, gave it to my ex, didnt even get a f'n thank you and had the nerve to leave for night for a piece of ass while I look after his son. Where was his priority at that time? Obviously, not with the boy.

 

Anyways, the whole thing just sucks. But - what can I do except move on and forward.

 

That's what got to me. It's fine for your x to move on when he decides he's ready for Ms Next - but it's not fair on the boy, who's bonded with you, who doesn't understand why you're not around anymore and is now facing Ms Next (and a new sibling). And it also leaves you with a boy-sized hole in your life, irrespective of your R with his father.

 

 

 

Absolutely. No one can be left feeling good out of this

Edited July 2, 2010 by BeagleGal

[BeagleGal]

Dont apologize for anything. Anyways, you're right in that I'm not his mother nor even his step-mom... I just feel for the boy really is all.

 

Anyways, you are right - he wasnt the man for me. And you know what, Thank God! From everyone at work to his close friend and even his own sister, they all said he's a cheat and this would have happened eventually..

 

But yeah... whats done is done....

 

sorry I thread-jacked beagle.........listen, you're right to feel sympathy for your X's son...but at the end of the day, you're not his mother. He has a step-mom and let's hope that she's as good to him as you were.

 

Your X wasn't the man for you. It hurts to think you put yourself in a position to be hurt by him, if we knew now what we knew then.......

 

Don't waste hate on his wife, don't waste hate on him. It's wasted emotion you should jealously keep to yourself.

[BeagleGal]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (I've always been a renter so have no clue about owning a house or anything like that).

 

Title - is that the same as the mortgage?

 

(I guess this teaches me in letting him "take care of everything". Sheesh... )

 

Did he put your name on the title?

Edited July 2, 2010 by BeagleGal

[Fallen Angel]

Oh wonderful!

 

Same people that say "just because you have a piece of paper, doesn't mean you really have a relationship with your H/W". So which one is it? Becasue you can't have it both ways!!!

 

My point was, had you really bothered to read what I wrote, that there really is no difference in the relationship simply because of a piece of paper. A relationship is a relationship is a relationship. Yet here the OP and others are responding in such a manner to suggest that this man's relationship with his new fiancee is not equally valid. They are both real relationships, but the general rule of thumb here on LS is that the only relationship that counts is one in which there is an exchange of rings. Therefore, given that rule of thumb, her relationship with this man (which did not include an exchange of vows and rings with an official to sign off on it being a "real relationship" makes her relationship invalid. As invalid as any OW/MM relationship. *shrug*

 

I was commenting on the duality of thought taking place. Trying to point out the obvious flaws in that kind of "rule of thumb" thinking. (Thankfully the world is not always black and white, because I love living mine in technicolor!!!)

[GreenEyedLady]

I thought the same when I first saw this post. It belongs in another forum. But GEL I don't think OP should be treated with a "you were less significant" tone either.

 

Well everyone treats the "OW" as if she is less than significant, so I thought,"Fair game."

 

I thought that when men love a woman, they move mountains.

 

Aww, I love irony.

 

GEL

[kuma]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (I've always been a renter so have no clue about owning a house or anything like that).

 

Title - is that the same as the mortgage?

 

(I guess this teaches me in letting him "take care of everything". Sheesh... )

 

No, title and mortgage are different. Check your mortgage/refinance package. I don't know where you live, but I think if your name is on the deed, you own equal share of his house. Maybe you can contact your local real estate agent/loan officer for more info.

[Mimolicious]

My point was, had you really bothered to read what I wrote, that there really is no difference in the relationship simply because of a piece of paper. A relationship is a relationship is a relationship. Yet here the OP and others are responding in such a manner to suggest that this man's relationship with his new fiancee is not equally valid. They are both real relationships, but the general rule of thumb here on LS is that the only relationship that counts is one in which there is an exchange of rings. Therefore, given that rule of thumb, her relationship with this man (which did not include an exchange of vows and rings with an official to sign off on it being a "real relationship" makes her relationship invalid. As invalid as any OW/MM relationship. *shrug*

 

I was commenting on the duality of thought taking place. Trying to point out the obvious flaws in that kind of "rule of thumb" thinking. (Thankfully the world is not always black and white, because I love living mine in technicolor!!!)

 

Unfortunately, this is the rule of thumbs in society, government, religion, etc... Uncle Sam really don't give a FACK who MM wants to be with or loves, but who he files head of household with. That the reality in the real world. There is a solution to that though...

 

Apparently there is another parallel sphere that exists in the minds of those involved in an A. Like you call it technicolor one. But I get you...

[Fieldsofgold]

My point was, had you really bothered to read what I wrote, that there really is no difference in the relationship simply because of a piece of paper. A relationship is a relationship is a relationship. Yet here the OP and others are responding in such a manner to suggest that this man's relationship with his new fiancee is not equally valid. They are both real relationships, but the general rule of thumb here on LS is that the only relationship that counts is one in which there is an exchange of rings. Therefore, given that rule of thumb, her relationship with this man (which did not include an exchange of vows and rings with an official to sign off on it being a "real relationship" makes her relationship invalid. As invalid as any OW/MM relationship. *shrug*

 

I was commenting on the duality of thought taking place. Trying to point out the obvious flaws in that kind of "rule of thumb" thinking. (Thankfully the world is not always black and white, because I love living mine in technicolor!!!)

 

A relationship is a relationship. And a commitment is a commitment. As Silly Girl pointed out, not everyone believes in the institution of marriage as performed by a religious or civil authority, yet if they have made that commitment, (meeting all other legally specified conditions) they are considered married. It is called a "common-law" marriage in some states. And it is recognized as equally legitimate as a marriage performed in a traditional manner with rings and a license. So in that case, where they are living together with commitment and intent, that would be equal to a traditional marriage in a court of law. The "piece of paper," the marriage license, in that case, is irrelevant.

 

However, when someone is in two relationships at the same time, one being with a person with whom they have a ceremony, a license, and a set of rings, then the one with the license and the set of rings IS the one that counts. It trumps the concurrent relationship, which would be without legal validation.

 

That is the law in my country.

 

When a person is in two relationships at the same time, the piece of paper matters very much.

 

BG, the fact that you lived together and he put your name on the house with him, sounds like you were maybe on your way to meeting the criteria for a common law marriage. I'm not an attorney, so TIFWIW

Edited July 6, 2010 by Fieldsofgold

[Fallen Angel]

A relationship is a relationship. And a commitment is a commitment. As Silly Girl pointed out, not everyone believes in the institution of marriage as performed by a religious or civil authority, yet if they have made that commitment, (meeting all other legally specified conditions) they are considered married. It is called a "common-law" marriage in some states. And it is recognized as equally legitimate as a marriage performed in a traditional manner with rings and a license. So in that case, where they are living together with commitment and intent, that would be equal to a traditional marriage in a court of law. The "piece of paper," the marriage license, in that case, is irrelevant.

 

However, when someone is in two relationships at the same time, one being with a person with whom they have a ceremony, a license, and a set of rings, then the one with the license and the set of rings IS the one that counts. It trumps the concurrent relationship, which would be without legal validation.

 

That is the law in my country.

 

When a person is in two relationships at the same time, the piece of paper matters very much.

 

BG, the fact that you lived together and he put your name on the house with him, sounds like you were maybe on your way to meeting the criteria for a common law marriage. I'm not an attorney, so TIFWIW

 

Common law marriage is permitted in a minority of states. To be defined as a common law marriage within the states listed below, the two parties must: agree that they are married, live together, and hold themselves out as husband and wife. Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990).

 

Before modern domestic relations statutes, couples became married by a variety of means that developed from custom. These became the elements of a "common-law marriage," or a marriage that arose by operation of law through the parties' conduct, instead of through a ceremony. In many ways, the theory of common-law marriage is one of estoppel - meaning that parties who have told the world they are married should not be allowed to claim that they are not married in a dispute between the parties themselves.

 

Currently, only 9 states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas) and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages contracted within their borders. In addition, five states have "grandfathered" common law marriage (Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. New Hampshire recognizes common law marriage only for purposes of probate, and Utah recognizes common law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.

 

You can read more at this site.

 

 

Obviously, based on the bolded areas in the text above, the couple in question do not meet the requirements for a common law marriage.

 

 

 

As a side note, this is what is happening in Autralia. I am wondering how long until we see similar laws here in the states. You can read the whole thing here.

 

Cheating husbands will be open to divorce-style litigation from their mistresses under new laws.

 

News Ltd says mistresses can now claim income maintenance, property and even superannuation funds under the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures), dubbed the "mistress laws", which were passed by the Senate last November and came into effect on Sunday.

 

The main objective is to remove same-sex discrimination from the Family Court system, but they have left the door open for a raft of de facto relationship claims.

 

The laws declare that de facto couples who satisfy basic criteria - such as being in the relationship for at least two years - will be treated in the Family Court in the same way as a married couple. It also applies to same-sex couples.

 

The laws will change the way property is divided by enabling the court to consider the "future needs" of partners, as it does for married couples.

 

Men or women who have a second relationship outside a marriage are now liable to legal action in the Family Court should the second partner decide he or she deserves income support or a share of assets. This is particularly the case if a child is involved.

 

As a result A CHEATING husband has paid his ex-lover more than $100,000 under Australia's new "mistress laws".

[Fallen Angel]

A relationship is a relationship. And a commitment is a commitment. As Silly Girl pointed out, not everyone believes in the institution of marriage as performed by a religious or civil authority, yet if they have made that commitment, (meeting all other legally specified conditions) they are considered married. It is called a "common-law" marriage in some states. And it is recognized as equally legitimate as a marriage performed in a traditional manner with rings and a license. So in that case, where they are living together with commitment and intent, that would be equal to a traditional marriage in a court of law. The "piece of paper," the marriage license, in that case, is irrelevant.

 

However, when someone is in two relationships at the same time, one being with a person with whom they have a ceremony, a license, and a set of rings, then the one with the license and the set of rings IS the one that counts. It trumps the concurrent relationship, which would be without legal validation.

 

That is the law in my country.

 

When a person is in two relationships at the same time, the piece of paper matters very much.

 

BG, the fact that you lived together and he put your name on the house with him, sounds like you were maybe on your way to meeting the criteria for a common law marriage. I'm not an attorney, so TIFWIW

 

And, for the record, I was saying that her relationship was just as valid as if she was married to him. But obviously people did not pick up on the sarcasm, and instead want to go on the attack as though I was discounting her relationship.

[Mimolicious]

And, for the record, I was saying that her relationship was just as valid as if she was married to him. But obviously people did not pick up on the sarcasm, and instead want to go on the attack as though I was discounting her relationship.

 

In the U.S. every state has different set of laws, but it's not just as simple as "living together" and there must be an intent to marry, eventually. You have to file taxes together as well.

 

I believe the OP said that they had a property in common. Well, like someone else said, there is a difference of being on the deed or just being on the mortgage. I see why the OP took the property sharing as an indication of a "committed relationship" but he may have just been using your for your credit for a lower interest rate for all we know.

 

 

Good bless America and it's constitution!

Edited July 8, 2010 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Fieldsofgold]

Common law marriage is permitted in a minority of states. To be defined as a common law marriage within the states listed below, the two parties must: agree that they are married, live together, and hold themselves out as husband and wife. Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990).

 

Before modern domestic relations statutes, couples became married by a variety of means that developed from custom. These became the elements of a "common-law marriage," or a marriage that arose by operation of law through the parties' conduct, instead of through a ceremony. In many ways, the theory of common-law marriage is one of estoppel - meaning that parties who have told the world they are married should not be allowed to claim that they are not married in a dispute between the parties themselves.

 

Currently, only 9 states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas) and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages contracted within their borders. In addition, five states have "grandfathered" common law marriage (Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. New Hampshire recognizes common law marriage only for purposes of probate, and Utah recognizes common law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.

 

You can read more at this site.

 

 

Obviously, based on the bolded areas in the text above, the couple in question do not meet the requirements for a common law marriage.

 

 

 

As a side note, this is what is happening in Autralia. I am wondering how long until we see similar laws here in the states. You can read the whole thing here.

 

Cheating husbands will be open to divorce-style litigation from their mistresses under new laws.

 

News Ltd says mistresses can now claim income maintenance, property and even superannuation funds under the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures), dubbed the "mistress laws", which were passed by the Senate last November and came into effect on Sunday.

 

The main objective is to remove same-sex discrimination from the Family Court system, but they have left the door open for a raft of de facto relationship claims.

 

The laws declare that de facto couples who satisfy basic criteria - such as being in the relationship for at least two years - will be treated in the Family Court in the same way as a married couple. It also applies to same-sex couples.

 

The laws will change the way property is divided by enabling the court to consider the "future needs" of partners, as it does for married couples.

 

Men or women who have a second relationship outside a marriage are now liable to legal action in the Family Court should the second partner decide he or she deserves income support or a share of assets. This is particularly the case if a child is involved.

 

As a result A CHEATING husband has paid his ex-lover more than $100,000 under Australia's new "mistress laws".

 

The possible impact and effects of Australia's "mistress laws" should be interesting. I wonder if it will make men less likely to cheat, or if more OW will move to Australia? Does the law apply equally to married women who have a lover, or is it a sexist law that targets married men? It could even trigger a new trend of pre-affair agreements, similar to pre-nuptial agreements.

 

But back to you, Ms. Beagle. I would suggest you find out exactly what your name is on, so that you can determine if you have any financial liability for the house. That could be a serious issue.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Fieldsofgold

[Fallen Angel]

Beagle,

 

You should definately find out if you are financially responsible for the mortgage payments. You may also have a claim to some of the equity that may have accrued in the house. I would suggest contacting the mortgage company and do title search, when you have gathered all documents regarding your involvement in the house, take them to a tax/property attorney to get help in getting what you are owed and/or removing any obligations that may exist for you regarding future payments/taxes/insurance owed on the house.

 

Good Luck.

Edited July 8, 2010 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[lolapalooza]

Beagle, I highly recommend that you get your credit report. You can get one free every year from annual creditreport dot com. It's not a pay thing you sign up for, as it's federal law that you are entitled to see your credit history. Be sure to check for joint accounts. Anything that is jointly held with this guy needs to be closed immediately. Mortgage info, if any, will show up there as well.

Edited July 8, 2010 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[pureinheart]

Or maybe he contacted you and asked if you wanted to meet for drinks and "catch up" because he felt badly about the way that he had treated you and wanted to apologize. Perhaps he wanted to be the one to tell you that he was getting married, that he was having a baby with the new woman in his life. Perhaps you mis-read his intentions because you want to believe he is not happy in his new relationship.

 

I am just using conjecture obviously, as were you when you decided he wanted more than just a friendly chat with his offer for drinks, but perhaps you should have asked him straight out what he wished to discuss, rather than assuming he wanted you to be his OW. Just my opinion.

 

Hi FA,

 

I think this is more the senerio as when we feel hurt or are upset and traumatised things seem more suspicious and diabolical.

 

I am seeing now that in most cases it was my broken heart in operation and doing the talking and thinking rather than common sense or reality.

[Mimolicious]

OP, I hope that you know which kind of bind you have with this property. Either you are on just the deed, just the mortgage or both. I mean, why would your exBF put you on the deed of his property if you were not legally tied and he was so quick to kick you out? Especially if you guys didn't buy the property together.

 

From the sounds of it he probably used you for your credit and you may just be in included in the mortgage. Either way, whatever he decides to do with this property, he can't do without you. You should definitely find out and think about what you want to do next. Hope that this property is all you guys have in common when it comes to finances. Share debt is no joke when a person wants nothing to do with you and has already moved on.

 

Like LOLA said- get a free credit report.

Edited July 8, 2010 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[BeagleGal]

I've been offline past few days so just catching up on threads here...

 

Hope everyone is well.

 

In regards to house, things are being taken care of so I'm fine. But thank you to call who gave me advice! Much appreciated!

 

Common law in Ontario: It used to be that living together with someone for a year legally considered you common law. But now having done some reading up AND talking to a lawyer, it is now 3 years or less than 3 years with a child together. See, when this all first went down, I had several ppl telling me I should do this or that b/c ex and I were common law as we had lived together for just over a year... Anyways, so as time went on and it came close to the year mark, I thought the relationship was going towards a common law relationship.

 

In regards to ex, he called me on Sat night at 4 (or Sun morning, however you look at it) and asked where I was, how he thinks about me while he watches this TV show that "he and I both would find humour in", told me he "loves" my dog and if he still pees in the house. HA! I said "no, dog's been good since we moved into new place". He says to me "you see, I knew the dog hated me and didn't want us to be together". HAHAHA! I said "uhhh noooo you didnt want us to be together anymore, remember, you checked out". (How dare he blame a beagle?!)... then he went on to tell me how since we broke up he's stopped drinking. I said "uuh, again, you called me for the first time since we split drunk and I know for a fact by the way you're talking, you've been drinking tonight". Also told me how he keeps tabs on me and wants to make sure "I'm staying outta trouble". I asked him "does your woman know you're calling me? I dont think you're allowed to or should now that you've moved on". His answer: Ha ha you're funny I can do what I want".

 

I wont bore with more stupid details but just him going on with his bull**** like blaming my dog for us breaking up and keeping tabs on me and ridiculous **** like that eased the pain just a little bit more.

 

Sorry for the boring details!

[Fieldsofgold]

It's not boring details. I'm just glad you're feeling better, seeing him clearly, and healing.

[Mimolicious]

Doesn't it also make you thank your lucky stars that you are no longer in a relationship with him? The more he tries the more lame he becomes in your eyes. One day you'll say "Wtf was I thinking?!"

[BeagleGal]

Thanks fieldsofgold! Yeah, I find it gets a little better each week that goes by. Hurt is still kinda fresh but as long as I tell myself that someone like him adds no value to my life, then I'm alright.

 

Mimolicious: I do - It took a while for me to thank my lucky stars though as I was still hanging onto illusions about him and still asking "why her, not me?". This month has been a bit stressful for me as he gets married end of but I remind myself that he's not changed, he's still full of **** and will still do whatever he wants regardless of who he's involved with. Its all about him, it always has been. I hadn't talked to him in months so when I finally did this past weekend, I was almost disappointed at how lame he was acting. But yeah, I can't wait for that day when I think that and when I feel absolutely nothing for him.

[itcantbimpossible]

Beagle,

 

Well I am new to this actually, new to this site. Almost the exact same thing happened to me. In a relationship for 2 years talked about marriage. I truely felt he loved me was loyal, and we had a great relationship. He breaks up with me out of the blue a week later I find he is dating a Girl out of state. 5 Months later to the date(yesturday) they post on their facebook that they are engaged. Showing a picture of the very large diamond. I am at the very least shocked... What the hell happened. I did try to get some sort of explanation when he broke up with me out of the blue, he just told me he couldn't explain. At least you have some communication so there is a small bit of understanding. I just seem to have been tossed from his life. I have seen stories like this on tv even corny movies never thought it actually could happen. I don't mean to over take your thread I just would like to say I can't even go a few hours without bursting into tears. I am actually feeling busted. Torn into bits. You seem to be coping well. Your extremely strong. Do you have any advice?

[BeagleGal]

itcantbepossible:

I'm sorry to hear you are going thru pain. First, delete him off FB. I did with my ex the first time I checked his profile after the breakup and saw that the other girl had posted a "kiss" on his wall. I'd seen enough, deleted him and deactivated myself.

As for this communication you speak of - don't think for a second that he came clean to me about what he'd done. I found out from a coworker at work about it all. When I confronted him, he tried to deny it. And he still does to this day. So no, there is no understanding. I was tossed just like you were and treated with such disrespect for no reason.

 

I'm not coping as well as you think. I mean, I'm doing better than I was a couple of months back but I'm still very much hurt. I think what keeps me going or what keeps me from acting like a psycho bitch is my dignity or pride or whatever. And my ex and I work for the same company so our situation is very much talked about and its humiliating but I keep my head down, work and that's it.

 

I'm not sure what advice you are looking for from me as I really have none to give seeing as I am not yet over my ex. I can tell you to go no contact with your ex but I've broken mine recently after 16 days when my ex texted me and called me about a week ago. I do believe though that time does help, keeping busy/distracted... like I said I am doing better than I was a couple of months back.

 

Its hard at the very beginning when you try to make sense of it all but I think the more space you have from your ex, you'll be able to see the situation clearer.

 

Beagle,

 

Well I am new to this actually, new to this site. Almost the exact same thing happened to me. In a relationship for 2 years talked about marriage. I truely felt he loved me was loyal, and we had a great relationship. He breaks up with me out of the blue a week later I find he is dating a Girl out of state. 5 Months later to the date(yesturday) they post on their facebook that they are engaged. Showing a picture of the very large diamond. I am at the very least shocked... What the hell happened. I did try to get some sort of explanation when he broke up with me out of the blue, he just told me he couldn't explain. At least you have some communication so there is a small bit of understanding. I just seem to have been tossed from his life. I have seen stories like this on tv even corny movies never thought it actually could happen. I don't mean to over take your thread I just would like to say I can't even go a few hours without bursting into tears. I am actually feeling busted. Torn into bits. You seem to be coping well. Your extremely strong. Do you have any advice?