Becca Kufrin & Garrett Yrigoyen - Bachelorette 14 - Discussion

I"m thinking Becca is in Palm Springs because she is still under contract to tptb as Bachelor Live was cut short (kind of like CH being on other ABC shows). Ditto for Sydney

I think Becca is back with her sister in Wisconsin.

GuardianAngel wrote:@Hawaii Girl IA totally. I forgot to mention, what are they still working things out for? It's simple, you take your things I'll take mine. I thought of the rumours how he got $ from his ex wife, after being married all of two months.

Just a question @GuardianAngel , I know a bit of this, and I saw part of her season, which I found so boring, but, what are the de facto laws in the US? In Australia, after  2 years of a de facto relationship the spouses have basically the same rights that married people have so unless they have agreed already on how to divide the assets, it can get very messy. Could that be Becca and Garrett's situation? Could anyone here tell me how it works in the US? @leavers @Norcalgal

Genevieve Australia wrote:

GuardianAngel wrote:@Hawaii Girl IA totally. I forgot to mention, what are they still working things out for? It's simple, you take your things I'll take mine. I thought of the rumours how he got $ from his ex wife, after being married all of two months.

Just a question @GuardianAngel , I know a bit of this, and I saw part of her season, which I found so boring, but, what are the de facto laws in the US? In Australia, after  2 years of a de facto relationship the spouses have basically the same rights that married people have so unless they have agreed already on how to divide the assets, it can get very messy. Could that be Becca and Garrett's situation? Could anyone here tell me how it works in the US? @leavers @Norcalgal

Not the answer to your question but this is
https://www.boydlawlosangeles.com/keeps-engagement-ring-california/

notarose wrote:

Genevieve Australia wrote:

GuardianAngel wrote:@Hawaii Girl IA totally. I forgot to mention, what are they still working things out for? It's simple, you take your things I'll take mine. I thought of the rumours how he got $ from his ex wife, after being married all of two months.

Just a question @GuardianAngel , I know a bit of this, and I saw part of her season, which I found so boring, but, what are the de facto laws in the US? In Australia, after  2 years of a de facto relationship the spouses have basically the same rights that married people have so unless they have agreed already on how to divide the assets, it can get very messy. Could that be Becca and Garrett's situation? Could anyone here tell me how it works in the US? @leavers @Norcalgal

Not the answer to your question but this is
https://www.boydlawlosangeles.com/keeps-engagement-ring-california/

IMO, This is not the applicable case law to cite because Garrett did not purchase the ring. I’ll bet tptb has special circumstances/legal protections built in to protect their Bette.

Genevieve Australia wrote:

GuardianAngel wrote:@Hawaii Girl IA totally. I forgot to mention, what are they still working things out for? It's simple, you take your things I'll take mine. I thought of the rumours how he got $ from his ex wife, after being married all of two months.

Just a question @GuardianAngel , I know a bit of this, and I saw part of her season, which I found so boring, but, what are the de facto laws in the US? In Australia, after  2 years of a de facto relationship the spouses have basically the same rights that married people have so unless they have agreed already on how to divide the assets, it can get very messy. Could that be Becca and Garrett's situation? Could anyone here tell me how it works in the US? @leavers @Norcalgal

I'm certainly no American law expert but every American friend I have tells me that there's generally nothing like our de facto laws in the USA. Some states have common law marriage but I don't think Becca and Garrett would qualify with a shortish relationship with no children. In the US if you want the protections of marriage you have to get married.

I  have no idea what the USA laws are but in Ontario Canada, if you are living together in a common law relationship for 3 years, each party is entitled to take what's theirs. From there it gets complicated depending on assets, title to a home who contributed to what etc. Inheritance money is exempt from division of assets and so is a home held in one person's name prior to entering in that relationship, again it gets complicated.

It's much easier to agree to a separation agreement asap, signed sealed preventing any messiness later on. However, a lot of the times, everyone are "friends" when they split only to turn into a disaster later. I've seen it plenty of times. I would think their situation would be easy to divide. They both seemed to do their own thing and one wasn't dependant on the other, I don't think.

I can't believe that law on the engagement ring. In Ontario the ring is deemed a gift and is owned by that party.

@Genevieve Australia  Here is what I found out. I doubt Becca and Garrett can have the proper criteria and therefore claim domestic partnership.

COMMON LAW MARRIAGE MYTHS

https://www.cadivorce.com/news/common-law-marriage-myths/


A couple becomes married by common law when there is no official ceremony, but the two people consider themselves married and meet certain criteria. However, not all states recognize common law marriage, and California is one of them, which brings us to common law marriage myth number one.
If you’ve been living together in Orange County without the official ties of a marriage license, there are some things you should be aware of.
Myth – All states recognize common law marriage
Most states, including California, DO NOT recognize common law marriage.
Myth – There is no way to have a common-law marriage in California


If you live as a married couple (by common law) in a state that recognizes common law and you move to California where you decide to pursue a divorce, the courts will work with you. However, this issue quickly becomes a complicated legal matter and should be discussed with an attorney.
Myth – Common law marriage occurs when you live together for seven years
You can live together for one year or 20 years, but unless you meet very specific criteria you won’t be considered married by common law.
Myth – You are married if you say you are married
As mentioned, you must meet specific criteria to be considered married by common law, which includes: 1) Living in a state where common law marriage is recognized; 2) Acknowledging your partner as your spouse or taking your partner’s last name; 3) Filing joint tax returns; and 4) Acknowledging that you plan to marry.
Myth – Courts don’t order support or property division for couples who never married
In California, the court recognizes palimony (Marvin claim). This means that if a couple lives together for an extended period of time and splits, he or she may have a right to receive support and/or a right to certain property acquired during the relationship. Always speak with an attorney to discuss your unique situation.

GuardianAngel wrote:I  have no idea what the USA laws are but in Ontario Canada, if you are living together in a common law relationship for 3 years, each party is entitled to take what's theirs. From there it gets complicated depending on assets, title to a home who contributed to what etc. Inheritance money is exempt from division of assets and so is a home held in one person's name prior to entering in that relationship, again it gets complicated.

It's much easier to agree to a separation agreement asap, signed sealed preventing any messiness later on. However, a lot of the times, everyone are "friends" when they split only to turn into a disaster later. I've seen it plenty of times. I would think their situation would be easy to divide. They both seemed to do their own thing and one wasn't dependant on the other, I don't think.

I can't believe that law on the engagement ring. In Ontario the ring is deemed a gift and is owned by that party.

Thank you so much to all those who responded @notarose @leavers @Astrobach @GuardianAngel Now I was thinking...I guess in the US some matters are decided by the state law. I too would assume that the ring won't be considered due to she getting it as a gift from the show. I know that in Australia the de facto separation is somehow flexible  especially if there are no kids involved so the longer a co. I hope that if as it seems Becca and Garrett broke up that they do it as amicably as possible. I am not suggesting they remain friends but that they are fair to each other. Scandal only makes things worse.

Last year, California created a legal domestic partnership law. So if Becca had medical insurance through an employer, Garrett could be added to her policy as a domestic partner. For those of you with national health insurance, I'm sure you are thinking huh? but the US is definitely in the dark ages when it comes to supporting its citizens with the same benefits as most other first world countries. To qualify for spousal support with social security upon retirement, you have to have been married for at minimum of 6 months (I believe but not 100% sure). If you have children, you have to give the other parent legal guardianship. Frankly, it's probably easier to just get married!

https://www.keenan.com/Resources/Briefings/Briefings-Detail/sb-30-california-changes-its-domestic-partners-definition-effective-january-1-2020

Terps4life wrote:This is why, in my opinion, that Rachel called him a POS.  Seeing how close Becca and Rachel are, IMO, Rachel might have had some inside knowledge about Garret’s post breakup behavior. Rachel is opinionated, IMO, but not messy. That POS comment seemed very personal and not as a result of his IG posts and likes.

Maybe it's me, but I think it's time for Becca and Rachel to think about parting ways with respect to the podcast. The only way I would allow a good friend to call my fiance a POS is if it was in private, and she knew without a doubt that was my opinion as well (and a breakup was imminent.) But in public? No way. I doubt Rachel would put up with it if Becca said the same thing in public about her own husband.

I feel that they can both find more compatible podcast partners, but right now Rachel is not doing Becca any favors by continuing to work together, IMO.

No ring so is this her way of saying "yes we broke up and leave me/us alone"?

Loading

View on Instagram

https://www.instagram.com/p/CD900z2B53v/