Skip to comments.Bigamy Doesn't Forfeit Assets (NM -- of course!)
Posted on 05/03/2006 1:42:14 PM PDT by CedarDave
Let's say you get married. Then let's say you get married again and you do it before you get divorced.
You're a bigamist.
Is there some penalty for such bad behavior in divorce court, or will you each still get your full half of the community property?
Amidst all the tedium of insurance cases and arguments over the finer points of jury instructions, the New Mexico Court of Appeals got to tackle these juicy questions recently when a divorce case involving a bigamist wife she was married to two men at the same time came up on appeal.
And the court's message brings some new math to the marriage contract: two-time your spouse with another spouse, a panel of judges said, and it doesn't mean you automatically give up your half of the assets from your first marriage.
The appellate court said other factors might influence a judge's decision to withhold some share of community property but that "the mere fact of bigamy is insufficient."
The case came out of Chaves County and involves a divorcing Roswell couple, Jose and Rachael Medina.
Jose and Rachael married on May 14, 1993, and dispute when they separated. Jose Medina says it was in 1997, while Rachael Medina says it was in 2003.
In 1999, Rachael Medina applied for a marriage license in Colorado to wed Paul Orozco. She used a fictitious name, Social Security number and birth date. She stated on the application that she was a widow.
She and Paul Orozco married and he died in 2002. Jose Medina filed for divorce from his wife in 2003.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Here's a guy in Tijeras who's breeding Vampire Bats
How is it that we attract these brain donors again?
Just down the road from you, Slim? Better keep the dog in at night and make sure that hole in the bedroom screen is repaired!
I can't read the rest of the article (the "free link" appears to require you to accept a cookie from an advertising web site, which they don't explicitly identify), but from what's posted it seems to make sense. Legally, the second marriage never existed, so as a nonexistent marriage it wouldn't have any effect on the divorce proceedings of the "real" first marriage.
Having said that, it's certainly prima facie evidence of spousal infidelity, which if it were up to me would significantly reduce the amount of marital possessions to which the cheater would be entitled. It sounds like the appellate judge in this case recognized the infidelity as a factor that could be considered, just not in the context of a legally nonexistent second marriage. But I don't know what the laws in NM have to say about infidelity in divorce proceedings.
The aliens in Roswell mostly speak Spanish.
FReep-mailed the entire article
I've found that a tennis raquet in each hand works wonders for these.
We attract more than our share of Darwin candidates!
So long as they don't get in the house, my 28 gauge Browning would probably be fun.
Must be the altitude.
Remember,boys and girls,you heard it here first.
So would my "Sweet 16", but they have that misdemeanor thing for discharging a firearm in Bernalillo County.
Be careful out there.
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.