South Dakota or Florida

[Zulu]

On 1/15/2018 at 6:21 AM, jrizzo12 said:

I am 58 and my wife is 55.  We both have pensions.  Mine is civil service / military and hers is NYS teachers.  We have Blue Cross / Blue Shield Federal healthcare. 

Is it an ACA plan?

[Blues]

On 1/14/2018 at 4:47 PM, Kirk Wood said:

If you are not yet eligible for Medicare, FL would have a major advantage over SD in that it has far more and better health care plans available. But there could also be legal issues such as estate planning, wills, dour rights, or any number of more personal things which could change that. It is very difficult for us to know what will be best for you. 

Dower rights are extremely rare, and men generally leave their property to their wives anyway (or it goes to the wife via the laws of intestacy if the man dies without a will), so even in extremely unlikely situation where dower rights exist, they have no practical effect. 

So it's difficult to know what will be best for somebody else, but it's a pretty sure bet that dower rights won't enter into the equation. 
 

Quote

 

Neither state has "common law" marriage in their legal codes.

 

I see this mentioned occasionally, and don't understand why it would be a consideration.  Contrary to popular belief, common law marriage doesn't automatically happen just because two people are living together, or because they have lived together for a certain amount of time.  There has to be some "holding out" as married.  Examples include introducing your better half as your husband or your wife, filing income taxes as married, or saying you're married on insurance applications. 

If you never hold yourself out as married, you'll never be declared married, period. 

But if you want to be married but don't want to have to get a license and have a ceremony, you can do that in Texas.  And if you like paperwork, you can file a "Declaration of Informal Marriage" at the county clerk's office.

But the bottom line is that there shouldn't be any fear of a state just because it recognizes common law marriage.

 

On 1/23/2018 at 4:42 PM, daveward said:

I can continue to pay my current insurer using auto payments so they won't know I've left till I get new insurance.  Is there anything that REQUIRES me to get the legal state of domicile setup by a certain date?   Thanks so much for thinking about this.  

From a practical standpoint, it's extremely unlikely that what you have now is actual fulltimer's insurance, and you'll need it when you no longer have homeowner's insurance.  Otherwise you won't have any of the personal liability coverage that homeowner's insurance provides. 

Only a few companies write true fulltimer's insurance (it's more than just covering the RV 365 days a year), and those companies all understand the fiction that is a garaging address for fulltimers.  So you might get away with just continuing to pay for the policy you have, but (1) it won't include all the coverage you need, and (2) in the event of a claim, the insurer might not be as on board with a fictional garaging address as would be the case of an actual fulltimer's policy.

[Kirk W]

14 hours ago, Blues said:

So it's difficult to know what will be best for somebody else, but it's a pretty sure bet that dower rights won't enter into the equation.

My point is that you need to be sure what applies to you. I know a couple who excluded TX because of the way that they deal with common law marriage. No matter what the issue you choose to suggest may be, it will not matter to everyone but probably does matter to some. I chose dower rights because it is pretty obscure and not often considered and is an example of something that might matter to someone that most never consider. There are dozens if not hundreds of such issues. The perfect choice for me could be a disaster for you. 

[Sehc]

Supplemental Medicare Polices do have different premiums depending on address, down to the county level.

[lappir]

I haven't read all the posts, but I am 61 this year and still working. Will work well into my 70's I'm sure. Didn't think about retirement when I chose South Dakota and my current health insurance agent say's don't change anything right now. Everyone has a different reason for choosing their domicile, hopefully you can find the best one for you. 

Rod

 

[oldbutspry]

On 1/26/2018 at 5:16 PM, Blues said:

I see this mentioned occasionally, and don't understand why it would be a consideration.  Contrary to popular belief, common law marriage doesn't automatically happen just because two people are living together, or because they have lived together for a certain amount of time.  There has to be some "holding out" as married.  Examples include introducing your better half as your husband or your wife, filing income taxes as married, or saying you're married on insurance applications. 

If you never hold yourself out as married, you'll never be declared married, period. 

But if you want to be married but don't want to have to get a license and have a ceremony, you can do that in Texas.  And if you like paperwork, you can file a "Declaration of Informal Marriage" at the county clerk's office.

But the bottom line is that there shouldn't be any fear of a state just because it recognizes common law marriage

I don't think you are considering all the possibilities.  Suppose the guy didn't want to get married but the woman did (or vice versa).  She could go around saying they are married.  Maybe open an account in both their names.  And he might not even know about these things until it is somehow "too late".

I think it may be a legitimate concern depending on a person's situation.

[Kirk W]

10 hours ago, oldbutspry said:

I think it may be a legitimate concern depending on a person's situation.

There is a well-respected member of these forums who this applied to. Having been married to the same woman more than 50 years, it isn't an area that I have personally given much study. 

[OldMan]

We're doing Florida or Texas when the time comes. ND is too far away and too COLD!!! I am the first to admit it, i am a candy-arsed California boy and proud of it. You snow lovers can have it. Set my compass south, I got summer in my blood.

Coyote Howls in the winter with small excursions in the warm lowlands. Slab City, Quartzite (but not RTR, not a Bob fan) maybe some relaxation along the Colorado river. We'll ALWAYS have a scanner tuned to the local NOAA frequency (I still love radio). Will be the first thing I listen to in the morning (along with reading an aviation weather briefing which has a LOT more technical information on it than the Weather Channel).

Summers will be wherever, maybe starting at Hungry Horse, near Glacier. Good fishing. HHR has a lot of appeal as a boondocking location. There is boondocking in the Spotted Bear Ranger District, too. Used to fly up there. Anyone ever been to Schafer? Gotta fly to get in.

[Blues]

17 hours ago, oldbutspry said:

I don't think you are considering all the possibilities.  Suppose the guy didn't want to get married but the woman did (or vice versa).  She could go around saying they are married.  Maybe open an account in both their names.  And he might not even know about these things until it is somehow "too late".

In order to have a common law marriage, there has to be an agreement to be married.  In the example you give, there is no such agreement.

The agreement can be inferred from the people's actions, but if only one person is holding out as being married, then there's nothing to infer an agreement from.  That's different from when both parties are holding out as being married (e.g., filing an income tax return as a married couple).

 

7 hours ago, Kirk Wood said:

There is a well-respected member of these forums who this applied to.

What was the situation? 

I like the idea of common law marriage because it gives people an option to be married without having to jump through hoops.  And in every case I know of where a situation has been declared a common law marriage, the finding was based on the parties' actions (and not just living together for X years, which is never the sole basis for a common law marriage).

So it's my understanding that if you don't hold yourself out as being married, you won't be declared married.  It's where people want it both ways--being married for some purposes and not married for others--where they run into trouble, and I'll admit that I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. 

[oldbutspry]

6 hours ago, rm.w/aview said:

Do not both need to be present upon account opening?

No, I think I added my wife to my accounts just by mailing in papers with our signatures.  A twelve-year-old can forge a signature, especially if they have access to signed papers they can use as an example.  Of course, someone shouldn't be living with a such an aspiring criminal but lots of people make bad decisions when it comes to relationships.

[oldbutspry]

53 minutes ago, Blues said:

In order to have a common law marriage, there has to be an agreement to be married.  In the example you give, there is no such agreement.

The agreement can be inferred from the people's actions, but if only one person is holding out as being married, then there's nothing to infer an agreement from.  That's different from when both parties are holding out as being married (e.g., filing an income tax return as a married couple).

I'm just thinking that a judge may not have proof of all the facts when they have to decide if you were or weren't married.  Not to mention that 'friends' sometime exaggerate or even lie.  Seems so much simpler to require the people to sign a paper so there's no doubt what was intended.

And if the requirements of getting married are too difficult then the people involved aren't terribly keen on getting married.  I thought the process was pretty darn simple.

[Kirk W]

1 hour ago, Blues said:

What was the situation? ..........................

So it's my understanding that if you don't hold yourself out as being married, you won't be declared married.  It's where people want it both ways--being married for some purposes and not married for others--where they run into trouble, and I'll admit that I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. 

 

The member's situation is his personal business, so I'll not share. If he sees this and wishes to do so, fine. 

On where the problem comes up, there are two cases which I am familiar with where the difficulty arose and both were when the couple went separate ways and involved a court over property and financial issues. In the case of my nephew, he had to pay alimony for a time. 

[Blues]

58 minutes ago, Kirk Wood said:

The member's situation is his personal business, so I'll not share. If he sees this and wishes to do so, fine.

I'm just asking for the situation that occurred, not the identity of the people, so you wouldn't be exposing anyone's personal business.  In fact, you kind of already did that yourself by saying it was a member of this forum.  But whatever--no way I'd be able to figure out who it was, or even care, since all I really want to hear about is a case where a couple was adjudged to be in a common law marriage even though they didn't ever present themselves as married.

 

Quote

On where the problem comes up, there are two cases which I am familiar with where the difficulty arose and both were when the couple went separate ways and involved a court over property and financial issues. In the case of my nephew, he had to pay alimony for a time. 

Since a common law marriage is considered a "real" marriage, to dissolve it you have to have a divorce and a property settlement, so I'm not surprised alimony would be involved.

But what I'm interested in is what led to the ruling that a common law marriage existed.  Like I've said, people will say they're not married, and then lo and behold they signed something as a married couple because it was financially advantageous for them to do so.  They tend to leave that part out in their telling.

 

1 hour ago, oldbutspry said:

I'm just thinking that a judge may not have proof of all the facts when they have to decide if you were or weren't married.  Not to mention that 'friends' sometime exaggerate or even lie.  Seems so much simpler to require the people to sign a paper so there's no doubt what was intended.

And if the requirements of getting married are too difficult then the people involved aren't terribly keen on getting married.  I thought the process was pretty darn simple.

Maybe they're just not keen on getting a license and being required to have a ceremony. 

I agree that it's "cleaner" to get married in the way the government prescribes, but that doesn't mean it should be the only option.

[bigjim]

When a court and judge decides you better be able to back up that it isn't so.  You might win and u very well might not. Even if you do "Win" it can easily cost you a lot financially, emotionally, and aggravatinglly if the other party is claiming it is so.   What might look simple and logical to you and me may not look that way to a court. My dealings with a court are on other matters but I sure got my eye's opened.

[oldbutspry]

2 hours ago, bigjim said:

When a court and judge decides you better be able to back up that it isn't so.  You might win and u very well might not. Even if you do "Win" it can easily cost you a lot financially, emotionally, and aggravatinglly if the other party is claiming it is so.   What might look simple and logical to you and me may not look that way to a court. My dealings with a court are on other matters but I sure got my eye's opened.

Exactly!  It's incredibly difficult to prove a negative.  Trying to prove you did not mean to be married is a crazy situation to be in.  Especially when there could be a motive for you to be lying.  And likely, the other person is lying about events that happened.  Not only that, the other person involved will likely have an opportunity to plot and collect 'evidence' before blindsiding the innocent one.  And it's not like you can pre-emptively sign a document stating you are in a relationship that is distinctly non-marital.  A court would just throw such a document out.

I think it would be a small risk for most people, but it does have the potential to devastate someone's life if it does happen.  Avoiding common-law states seems like a reasonable bit of insurance.

[OldMan]

5 hours ago, bigjim said:

When a court and judge decides you better be able to back up that it isn't so.  You might win and u very well might not. Even if you do "Win" it can easily cost you a lot financially, emotionally, and aggravatinglly if the other party is claiming it is so.   What might look simple and logical to you and me may not look that way to a court. My dealings with a court are on other matters but I sure got my eye's opened.

I think it depends on the circumstances and the judge. My one court battle, I was pro se. What I discovered is the key to winning is preparation. Having EVERY document presented in triplicate. The other party's attorney was never prepared. Never remembered the specifics of the case, tried to skirt the law and was busted. I moved for sanctions and got it. I was winning and I wanted him to be a better lawyer.

I think of it, now and howl with laughter almost as much as I do when watching "Stars of the Vlogger Puppets." Now that's some funny stuff.

[sandsys]

I don't know the specifics of the above couple's situations for choosing not to marry but I can imagine some possibilities for other's. For instance, if one person is receiving benefits based on a deceased spouse, the couple may not want to put that at risk. Or, if a couple each had some significant assets that they wanted to protect for their children, they might not want to get married in a state that would give those assets to the spouse rather than the children--some states won't let you disown the spouse. One couple I know of chose not to marry until their gay friends could also marry and receive the legal and financial benefits of doing so. There are many situations out there that would not apply to most of us but that doesn't mean they don't need to be considered by anyone.

Linda Sand

[budeneighe]

On 1/12/2018 at 7:38 PM, pfhays said:

I'm a South Dakota resident but winter in Florida.  As a tourist in Florida, there is an additional tax of 5% on your campground rental fee.  Just something to think about.

And as others have said, if you are not yet on Medicare you may not want to use South Dakota as your domicile.

 This depends in where you are. Here, in St Augustine, FL, it is 10% "hospitality tax" for the first 6 months of residence. After that, no tax.

 

[Kirk W]

7 minutes ago, budeneighe said:

10% "hospitality tax"

That isn't my idea of hospitality!   

[budeneighe]

We have been domiciled in SD since 2013 but just completed our "relocation" to Florida as our domicile.  what motivated this is that although our mail handling service "Myhomeaddress" in Emery, SD handles all our vehicle renewals, we still have to return to SD to renew our driver's licenses (CDLs) despite what the general SD regs say (one by mail renewal is allowed every 10 years.

Also, all of our family ties are back east so it is easier to get to/from Florida than SD.  We are also spinning down as we age and those long cross-country drives are getting a lot harder than we are willing to put up with.

The medical facilities and available plans are better in Florida, too. The only real cost overhead unique to Florida was the vehicle impact fee of $250/motor vehicle, a one time charge when transferring registration from another state. All other costs/advantages are about equal between SD and Fl.

[budeneighe]

1 minute ago, Kirk Wood said:

That isn't my idea of hospitality!   

Mine either. Leave your campground for a week for any reason and the clock restarts. We had to leave for Hurricane Irma last fall but continued to pay for our site so we did not have it restart on us but it is an aggravation, for sure. FL no longer requires vehicle inspections, though, so that is a plus compared to some states.

[bigjim]

On 1/28/2018 at 11:13 PM, OldMan said:

I think it depends on the circumstances and the judge. My one court battle, I was pro se. What I discovered is the key to winning is preparation. Having EVERY document presented in triplicate. The other party's attorney was never prepared. Never remembered the specifics of the case, tried to skirt the law and was busted. I moved for sanctions and got it. I was winning and I wanted him to be a better lawyer.

This is certainly true but of course depending on where you are you can't usually have a say in picking the judge.  I would assume you could appeal if you don't like the results but that is more trouble and expense with a low expectation of getting the result you want.  IE: a friend had a city knock down a vacant building he owned due to misuse by the homeless and drug users. THE problem was they knocked down the wrong building. It wasn't his they meant to knock down. Without going into too much detail the city basically said screw you. After consulting with a good attorney that would take the case he basically just let it go as the expense, trouble, time and no surety of the outcome just wasn't worth it to him. He even had a little trouble getting the tax appraisal lowered to a vacant lot.  Everything is a matter of judgement and pragmatism.

[Chad Heiser]

1 hour ago, budeneighe said:

We have been domiciled in SD since 2013 but just completed our "relocation" to Florida as our domicile.  

Bud,

How did you register your HDT in FL?  Is it a private truck?  I know they don't allow the RV registration/title with a 5th wheel hitch.  Just curious.

[Blues]

On 1/28/2018 at 5:55 PM, oldbutspry said:

Exactly!  It's incredibly difficult to prove a negative.  Trying to prove you did not mean to be married is a crazy situation to be in. 

The easiest way to prove you did not mean to be married is to not do anything that represents to the public that you are married.  You know, something along the lines of "Don't lie, and definitely don't selectively lie in order to get a financial benefit."  If you don't hold yourself out as being married, it's unlikely it will ever even come up. 

But if it does come up, the person claiming that a common law marriage exists will have the burden of proof.  That's not proving a negative.

Again, I have yet to hear of a case where someone really didn't do any holding out (no signing tax returns as a married couple, no borrowing money as a married couple) and yet was declared to be in a common-law marriage.

 

Quote

And it's not like you can pre-emptively sign a document stating you are in a relationship that is distinctly non-marital.  A court would just throw such a document out.

Actually, you can (and maybe should) sign an agreement if you are living together and sharing expenses but are not and don't want to be married.  It's used mainly for financial reasons (like a prenup, only there's no nup), but it would also serve as an acknowledgement that you are not married as of that date, and that you aren't intending to be married.

 

Quote

I think it would be a small risk for most people, but it does have the potential to devastate someone's life if it does happen.  Avoiding common-law states seems like a reasonable bit of insurance.

A distinction:  It's not common law states you want to avoid--it's states that recognize common-law marriage.  A "common law state" is something entirely different.

I find it interesting that arcane and unlikely scenarios like dower and common-law marriage are brought up, but not community property.  Or the laws of intestacy, which kick in if a will is declared invalid in a will contest. 

(And in the case of dower, I'll admit I haven't even thought of it in 30 years, but I think it applies, in the rare instances where it does apply in the U.S., only to real property (i.e., land), which most fulltimers won't have.)

Most "regular" people pick a state to live in based on whether they want to actually live there, based on a job, the weather, the community--things like that.  A factor might be the cost of living, like taxes or fees, but the driving issue will be where they want to physically be.  It would be a rare person who investigates the laws concerning dower or intestacy or even community property, and yet the vast majority of people get along just fine.

For fulltimers, it's different because there's no hugely overriding factor, like whether they actually want to live in a given place, so I guess it's tempting to get into the weeds in order to have something to base a decision on. 

[OldMan]

On 1/29/2018 at 1:29 PM, sandsys said:

I don't know the specifics of the above couple's situations for choosing not to marry...

BTDT, wiped me arse with the t-shirt. Twice. We live in blissful SIN, because because we need no paper to tell us what's in our hearts and we're not believers, so the clergy would do us no good, anyway. I sound like a broken record, but at my age, after my life, I've run out of f's to give. If you're looking for someone to care and it's not an issue helping my family or people I know who need it, look elsewhere. To hell with the one percent. Help people.