![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#25 | |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
femme woman Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
solo ![]() Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 905
Thanks: 302
Thanked 2,152 Times in 659 Posts
Rep Power: 16642920 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
"Tenants in common" is not a good choice to protect a couples rights. A home, car or other property owned as tenants in common gives each partner rights to only half of said property. Children or even distant relatives of the deceased or incapacitated partner could force the property into probate. The remainng partner would most likely be forced to sell the property and give half to the suing family member. Any jointly owned property should be titled as "Joint tenants", with the added phrase "with full rights to survivor", which adds further clarity to the intention of the owners.
"Tenants in common" should only be used if either partner has children or other relatives that they wish to have to leave their assets to rather than their partner. This article makes me so sad, But I add my plea that you not use it as an excuse to avoid obtaining necessary documents to protect your rights. No system is perfect. This is an awful situation, but it could have happened just as easily to a cohabiting elderly straight couple. In Florida, during the last election, when the charming voters of my state decided to eliminate the legal status of "domestic partner", the biggest group lobbying to keep it from being passed was an elder rights group which used only straight couples as spokespeople. The religious right was so anxious to eliminate any possibility that gay folks could establish a legal relationship of any kind, that they through cohabiting straight people under the truck as well. Sad Smooches, Keri Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to iamkeri1 For This Useful Post: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|