Author Topic: 153  (Read 3841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DreamWalker25

  • RFF Donor
  • RFF Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 125
  • "At any rate..."
    • DreamWalker's MySpace
153
« on: September 01, 2007, 12:42:14 AM »
153 was the message that Dani sent to Nick, what do you guys think it stands for?

My guess: I adore you (#of letters for each word = 1-5-3)

Offline puddin

  • **puddinpiepork**
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 85454
Re: 153
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2007, 02:34:49 AM »
Right because 1-4-3 equals I love you  -- too cute.


Offline kc

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Happy Sunny Day
Re: 153
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2007, 05:37:14 AM »
i did not understand why julie had to ask what that stood for.  The houseguests have mics on all the time so its not like they could have discused its personal meaning without any of the BB staff listening hearing it. 

Offline Seanaci

  • RFF Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
    • My Blog
Re: 153
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2007, 10:29:22 AM »
I'll bet you're right...it's got to be "I adore you." Cause even "I miss you" would be 143.

Offline Rob

  • RFF Administrator
  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
    • Reality Fan Forum
Re: 153
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2007, 10:57:05 AM »
I think it is something to do with Nick and something that is 1.53 inches??? And Dani thinks its cute!!


Offline TexasLady

  • Forum Moderator
  • RFF Assistant Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 24167
  • So much to watch, so little time!
Re: 153
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2007, 11:08:44 AM »
I think it is something to do with Nick and something that is 1.53 inches??? And Dani thinks its cute!!

It IS cute.. they adore each other Rob!  :hearts: :kissy: :roses: :hrt:

It means I adore you. LOL 1=I, 5=adore, 3=you. See?  :-*
The choices we make dictate the life we lead.

Offline Rob

  • RFF Administrator
  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 4351
    • Reality Fan Forum
Re: 153
« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2007, 11:19:56 AM »
I just don't understand why Dani would throw away something at home she has had for 2+ years for Mr One Hit Wonder Nick???

Offline TexasLady

  • Forum Moderator
  • RFF Assistant Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 24167
  • So much to watch, so little time!
Re: 153
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2007, 11:22:09 AM »
I just don't understand why Dani would throw away something at home she has had for 2+ years for Mr One Hit Wonder Nick???

I think it will turn out to be like Janie and Michael, a big nothing when she's back in the real world to be honest.
The choices we make dictate the life we lead.

Offline kc

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Happy Sunny Day
Re: 153
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2007, 12:33:07 PM »
hummm maybe kris and eric's ex can get together  :rotf:

Offline TexasLady

  • Forum Moderator
  • RFF Assistant Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 24167
  • So much to watch, so little time!
Re: 153
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2007, 12:42:16 PM »
hummm maybe kris and eric's ex can get together  :rotf:

LOL Maybe!!! They have a lot in common!
The choices we make dictate the life we lead.


Offline DreamWalker25

  • RFF Donor
  • RFF Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 125
  • "At any rate..."
    • DreamWalker's MySpace
Re: 153
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2007, 12:47:05 PM »
hummm maybe kris and eric's ex can get together  :rotf:

LOL Maybe!!! They have a lot in common!
That would be too funny! Do you think Kris will show up at the wrap-up party? You know Nick is going to be there. Oh, to be a fly on the wall for that meeting...lol.

Offline kc

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Happy Sunny Day
Re: 153
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2007, 03:25:53 PM »
if kris has any diginity he will ditch dani and not take her back when her and nick fall completly flat (or when he deiceds he wants a guy) she so quickly threw away 2 years with someone for a few weeks in the house.  Clearly her relationship did not mean as much as she said it did.

Offline dustigenes

  • RFF Not So Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: 153
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2007, 08:32:06 PM »
Maybe Kris is waiting to see how much Dani wins before he kicks her to the curb.  What's the law around earned income and couples who live together down there? 

Offline TexasLady

  • Forum Moderator
  • RFF Assistant Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 24167
  • So much to watch, so little time!
Re: 153
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2007, 08:54:03 PM »
Maybe Kris is waiting to see how much Dani wins before he kicks her to the curb.  What's the law around earned income and couples who live together down there? 

OUCH! It does seem that he doesn't have much money. CA is a community property state I do believe.
The choices we make dictate the life we lead.

Offline TOPDOG

  • RFF Not So Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: 153
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2007, 09:40:05 PM »
Nick's an immature tool!

Offline dustigenes

  • RFF Not So Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: 153
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2007, 08:45:22 AM »


OUCH! It does seem that he doesn't have much money. CA is a community property state I do believe.
[/quote]


Well she has not technically moved out and if he is keeping the home front (paying bills etc) going for her, then he maybe intitled to half her earnings on the show.  She could be looking at a law suit.  :yess:
Now I have a reason to want her to win.

Offline kc

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Happy Sunny Day
Re: 153
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2007, 10:23:42 AM »
doesnt that only apply if your married?

Offline TexasLady

  • Forum Moderator
  • RFF Assistant Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 24167
  • So much to watch, so little time!
Re: 153
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2007, 11:47:27 AM »
doesnt that only apply if your married?

Not if you claim common law but CA might have changed their laws now. Been awhile since I looked at them.
The choices we make dictate the life we lead.

Offline kc

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Happy Sunny Day
Re: 153
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2007, 03:40:53 PM »
i thought a common law marriage was after you lived togetehr for 7 or 10 years.

Offline s1

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
Re: 153
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2007, 04:39:10 PM »
NCSL Home > State & Federal Issues: Issue Areas > Human Services > Common Law Marriage  Add to MyNCSL 

Common Law Marriage
Common law marriage is permitted in a minority of states. To be defined as a common law marriage within the states listed below, the two parties must: agree that they are married, live together, and hold themselves out as husband and wife. Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990).

Before modern domestic relations statutes, couples became married by a variety of means that developed from custom. These became the elements of a "common-law marriage," or a marriage that arose by operation of law through the parties' conduct, instead of through a ceremony. In many ways, the theory of common-law marriage is one of estoppel - meaning that parties who have told the world they are married should not be allowed to claim that they are not married in a dispute between the parties themselves.

Currently, only 10 states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas) and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages contracted within their borders. In addition, five states have "grandfathered" common law marriage, allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. New Hampshire recognizes common law marriage only for purposes of probate, and Utah recognizes common law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.


Alabama
 New Hampshire ³
 
Colorado
 Ohio 4
 
District of Columbia
 Oklahoma5 (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, § 1)
 
Georgia¹
 Pennsylvania (23 Penn. Cons. Stat. § 1103)
 
Idaho ²
 Rhode Island
 
Iowa (Iowa Code Ann. §. 595.11)
 South Carolina
 
Kansas 8
 Texas 6 (Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401)
 
Montana (Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602, 40-1-403)
 Utah7(Utah Code Ann.§ 30-1-4.5)
 



Only for common law marriages formed before January 1, 1997 (1996 Georgia Act 1021).

Only for common law marriages formed before January 1, 1996 (Idaho Code § 32-201).
Common law marriages effective only at death. (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 457:39).
Only for common law marriages formed before October 10, 1991 (Lyons v. Lyons 621 N.E. 2d 718 (Ohio App. 1993)).
Only for common law marriage formed before November 1, 1998. (1998 Okla. SB 1076).
Texas calls it an "informal marriage," rather than a common-law marriage. Under § 2.401 of the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. A 1995 update adds an evidentiary presumption that there was no marriage if no suit for proof of marriage is filed within two years of the date the parties separated and ceased living together.
Administrative order establishes that it arises out of a contract between two consenting parties who: (a) are capable of giving consent; (b) are legally capable of entering a solemnized marriage; (c) have cohabited; (d) mutually assume marital rights, duties, and obligations; and (e) who hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife. The determination or establishment of such a marriage must occur during the relationship or within one year following the termination of that relationship.
Kansas law prohibits recognition of common law marriage if either party is under 18 years of age. (2002 Kan. Sess. Laws, SB 486, §23-101).
Because the doctrine of common law marriage developed prior to the advent of modern domestic relations statutes, in some states the law exists in case law rather than legislation. (For example: Piel v. Brown, 361 So. 2d 90, 93 (Ala. 1978); Deter v. Deter, 484 P.2d 805, 806 (Colo. Ct. App. 1971); Johnson v. Young, 372 A.2d 992, 994 (D.C. 1977); Smith v. Smith, 161 Kan. 1, 3, 165 P.2d 593, 594 (1946); Sardonis v. Sardonis, 106 R.I. 469, 472, 261 A.2d 22, 23 (1970); Johnson v. Johnson, 235 S.C. 542, 550, 112 S.E.2d 647, 651 (1960)).

Tennessee has employed a doctrine of "estoppel to deny marriage." See Note, Informal Marriages in Tennessee - Marriage by Estoppel, by Prescription and by Ratification, 3 VAND. L. REV. 610, 614-15 (1950).

Many states have abolished common-law marriage by statute, because common-law marriage was seen as encouraging fraud and condoning vice, debasing conventional marriage, and as no longer necessary with increased access to clergy and justices of the peace. (For example: Cal. Civ. Code § 4100; N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 11 ; Furth v. Furth, 133 S.W. 1037, 1038-39 (Ark. 1911); Owens v. Bentley, 14 A.2d 391, 393 (Del. Super. 1940); Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48 (1910)).

Among those states that permit a common-law marriage to be contracted, the elements of a common-law marriage vary slightly from state to state. The indispensable elements are (1) cohabitation and (2) "holding out." "Holding out" means that the parties tell the world that they are husband and wife through their conduct, such as the woman's assumption of the man's surname, filing a joint federal income tax return, etc. This means that mere cohabitation cannot, by itself, rise to the level of constituting a marriage. Of course, many disputes arise when facts (such as intentions of the parties or statements made to third parties) are in controversy.

The United States Constitution requires every state to accord "Full Faith and Credit" to the laws of its sister states. Thus, a common-law marriage that is validly contracted in a state where such marriages are legal will be valid even in states where such marriages cannot be contracted and may be contrary to public policy.

There is no such thing as common-law divorce. Once parties are married, regardless of the manner in which their marriage is contracted, they are married and can only be divorced by appropriate means in the place where the divorce is granted. That means, in all 50 states, only by a court order.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For more information regarding marriage and/or divorce, contact Christine Nelson at 303-364-7700 or cyf-info@ncsl.org.

 *PLEASE NOTE: The National Conference of State Legislatures is an organization serving state legislators and their staff. We cannot offer legal advice or assistance with individual cases.
 

Offline kc

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Happy Sunny Day
Re: 153
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2007, 06:04:24 PM »
Well and there you have it LOL.

i guess kris is out of luck.

Offline dustigenes

  • RFF Not So Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: 153
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2007, 06:23:16 PM »
Awwww poor guy, no recourse, damn.

Offline tigerlilly77

  • RFF Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 185
Re: 153
« Reply #22 on: September 02, 2007, 06:25:11 PM »
I think it's cute :hearts:

Offline TexasLady

  • Forum Moderator
  • RFF Assistant Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 24167
  • So much to watch, so little time!
Re: 153
« Reply #23 on: September 02, 2007, 09:59:36 PM »
Thanks S1! That settles it.
The choices we make dictate the life we lead.

Offline Seanaci

  • RFF Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
    • My Blog
Re: 153
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2007, 06:23:39 PM »
if kris has any diginity he will ditch dani and not take her back when her and nick fall completly flat (when he deiceds he wants a guy) she so quickly threw away 2 years with someone for a few weeks in the house.  Clearly her relationship did not mean as much as she said it did.
Lol at the bolded. :D I was going to say why would Dani throw away something she's had for two years with a perfectly straight guy to be with a guy whose got a list of Hut Guys (or whatever it was). :P

i thought a common law marriage was after you lived togetehr for 7 or 10 years.
I think it varies from state to state.