She wanted the wedding. He knew she did. She suspected there were financial troubles. He admitted to it. That's all. Another woman putting a guy in debt for a worthless wedding. Then she leaves him. Guy lost $5k for nothing. What a joke.
In the comment right above this where you yourself posted a lawyer's comment from the Reddit thread, that lawyer says that (1) for all intents and purposes they're not common law married and (2) there's no reason for his creditors to come after her.
Either one of those things would mean she's not in debt because of him. And they're both true. So, what are you talking about that he put her in debt?
She wanted the wedding. He knew she did. She suspected there were financial troubles. He admitted to it. That's all. Another woman putting a guy in debt for a worthless wedding. Then she leaves him. Guy lost $5k for nothing. What a joke.
Read it again. The man put the woman in debt to. Of you are I'm able to read, use text to speech.
In the comment right above this where you yourself posted a lawyer's comment from the Reddit thread, that lawyer says that (1) for all intents and purposes they're not common law married and (2) there's no reason for his creditors to come after her.
Either one of those things would mean she's not in debt because of him. And they're both true. So, what are you talking about that he put her in debt?
They officially filed taxes, and they will need to get an actual divorce. The debate about this is the drama. I'm glad you're enjoying it.