Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Marriage

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Nieves
    The company doesnt have to be in SC in order to follow the law of the land.  The supreme court said this. Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923):
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 11, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      The company doesnt have to be in SC in order to follow the law of the land.  The supreme court said this.

      While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship G-d according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co ., 111 U.S. 746 , 4 Sup. Ct. 652; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Minnesota v. Bar er, 136 U.S. 313 , 10 Sup. Ct. 862; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 , 17 Sup. Ct. 427; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 , 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Twining v. New Jersey 211 U.S. 78 , 29 Sup. Ct. 14; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549 , 31 Sup. Ct. 259; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 , 36 Sup. Ct. 7, L. R. A. 1916D, 545, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Adams v. Tanner, 224 U.S. 590 , 37 Sup. Ct. 662, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357 , 38 Sup. Ct. 337, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 593; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 , 42 Sup. Ct. 124; Adkins v. Children's Hospital (April 9, 1923), 261 U.S. 525 , 43 Sup. Ct. 394, 67 L. Ed. --; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474, 86 N. E. 925, 128 Am. St. Rep. 439, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 147. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered [262 U.S. 390, 400]   with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect. Determination by the Legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137 , 14 S. Sup. Ct. 499.

      [Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)]

       

      That probably means you have to take the Insurance Company to Court because Liberty is subject to the supervision of the courts.  This is for your education and not to be construed as legal advice.  What you do is always your responsibility. 



      --- On Fri, 12/11/09, Ron Ayers <ronsoldcars@...> wrote:

      From: Ron Ayers <ronsoldcars@...>
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Marriage
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, December 11, 2009, 3:38 AM

       
      I dwell in South Carolina which recognizes Common Law marriages.  My wife and I got married on a cruise ship in international waters and we filled out  a Marriage Certificate.  My wife works for a major insurance company based in the mid west.  My wife put me on her health insurance at work.  And a couple of months later, she was asked to provide a Marriage license or Certificate to provide our marriage.  The rejected our marriage Certificate and terminated me on her insurance policy.  We provided the laws showing that Common Law marriages were lawfull in SC.  The insurance company official told us that they did not have to recognize our Common Law marriage because they (the company) was not headquartered in SC.   I did not want to press the issue as I did not want to put her job in jeoparady.  Any Advice?
       
      Thanks
      Ron


    • Gary
      If I am not mistaken, the law of reciprocity would apply here. A marriage in any state is recognized in every other state. My personal response would be to
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        If I am not mistaken, the law of reciprocity would apply here. A
        marriage in any state is recognized in every other state. My personal
        response would be to sue them for discrimination. Although, I am not a
        fan of the ACLU, they might be of some assistance here if only to see if
        I am correct. Keep in mind things for the future, such as if your wife
        should retire from this company and something happened to her, you would
        not be entitled to any of her retirement benefits, 401Ks, etc. Also,
        there may be an international treaty/law recognizing marriages by a
        ship's Captain.

        Gary

        Ron Ayers wrote:
        >
        > I dwell in South Carolina which recognizes Common Law marriages. My
        > wife and I got married on a cruise ship in international waters and we
        > filled out a Marriage Certificate. My wife works for a major
        > insurance company based in the mid west. My wife put me on her health
        > insurance at work. And a couple of months later, she was asked to
        > provide a Marriage license or Certificate to provide our marriage.
        > The rejected our marriage Certificate and terminated me on her
        > insurance policy. We provided the laws showing that Common Law
        > marriages were lawfull in SC. The insurance company official told us
        > that they did not have to recognize our Common Law marriage because
        > they (the company) was not headquartered in SC. I did not want to
        > press the issue as I did not want to put her job in jeoparady. Any
        > Advice?
        >
        > Thanks
        > Ron
        >
        >
      • Russell Mortland
        Contact the state insurance commissioner about the problem if he sides with you they will reinstate you or the commissioner has the power to stop the insurance
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 11, 2009
        • 0 Attachment

          Contact the state insurance commissioner about the problem if he sides with you they will reinstate you or the commissioner has the power to stop the insurance company in that state from doing business

           

          From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Ayers
          Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 5:39 AM
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Marriage

           




          I dwell in South Carolina which recognizes Common Law marriages.  My wife and I got married on a cruise ship in international waters and we filled out  a Marriage Certificate.  My wife works for a major insurance company based in the mid west.  My wife put me on her health insurance at work.  And a couple of months later, she was asked to provide a Marriage license or Certificate to provide our marriage.  The rejected our marriage Certificate and terminated me on her insurance policy.  We provided the laws showing that Common Law marriages were lawfull in SC.  The insurance company official told us that they did not have to recognize our Common Law marriage because they (the company) was not headquartered in SC.   I did not want to press the issue as I did not want to put her job in jeoparady.  Any Advice?

           

          Thanks
          Ron

           




        • Dale Pond
          Convert your marriage statement/agreement/contract into a duly sworn and witnessed affidavit. That puts your feet firmly on legal ground to then move as you
          Message 4 of 7 , Dec 13, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Convert your marriage statement/agreement/contract into a duly sworn
            and witnessed affidavit.
            That puts your feet firmly on legal ground to then move as you see
            fit or circumstances indicate....
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.