Common law marriage, it's when 2 people live together and share payments. Almost the same rights as a married couple without the actual marriage.
When 2 people live together like that, unless a prenup or other legal agreement is made, all property and finances are shared. She pre empted and went through a lawyer which gave her headway. He just ran away which while writing an email saying she could have it all.
He didn't seek legal advice of his own nor did he try and fight so in the eyes of the law he gave up any rights to any property. We only have one brief internal monologue saying he worked his ass off for the car not that he paid for it himself in full.
Unless he has paperwork with his name on it he is, if you'll excuse my language, fucked like a cheap Saigon whore.
Actually, you're wrong. In the first place, common-law marriage only exists in a limited number of jurisdictions--20% or so of US states, Ontario (plus something somewhat similar in Quebec and BC) , the UK (of course), some old English territories, and, oddly enough, Israel.
Second, "2 people living together and sharing payments"
is not sufficient for common-law status. In Colorado, for instance, common-law status only applies if the couple
describes themselves as husband and wife. I believe that is also true in most other US jurisdictions which recognize common-law marriage. Given that the MC 1) never calls Bethany his wife but 2) does say they were engaged--which is to say, he had
asked her to marry him but the marriage had never been formalized--it seems clear that they were not common-law spouses by any US standard. Given what I know of common-law marriage elsewhere in the world, it doesn't seem likely that they would have been common-law spouses anywhere else, either.
Third, you're assuming that "all property and finances are shared"--something which isn't even true in a great many
statutory marriages. We don't know if the MC and Bethany had one checking account or two, and we don't know whose name is on the title to--or listed with the insurance company as the primary driver for--which car.
Now, again, I believe from his earlier comment that
@Jeff Steel is a lawyer; I'm not, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so he may well know something I don't, and presumably it's his knowledge which has shaped the plot. But on the evidence we have to date, there is no justification for
assuming common-law status for Bethany and the MC. (And even if they were common-law spouses, that doesn't necessarily give Bethany justification for seizing the MC's property; that would depend on the jurisdiction in which they live.)