Unmarried Rights

[Deleted User]

Our greedy judiciary wants more money for its members.

Divorce law has steadily made marriage too high a risk for many of us whilst enriching the solicitors.

Now presumable because of the decline in marriage numbers they want to go after people living together.

Assuming that they get their way, do you think that the number of people people living alone will increase as a proportion over time? The way I see it is unless you want kids then you'd be better living alone if these rules came into being.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12352200

StevieJ

I didn't know that, men can obviously claim maintenance and women can't, or have I got that wrong?

"Women cohabitees, in particular, are severely disadvantaged by being unable to claim maintenance and having their property rights determined by the conventional laws of trusts."

lemonjelly

You have it wrong StevieJ, but you know that, don't you, you naughty little devil!;)

For my money, Hall has it way wrong in the majority of cases. Where biological parentage can be proven, then maintenance can & will be applied for & awarded. Only via the CSA or whatever they are called now. This was done with the express view to take pressure away from the courts service.

Where a beneficial interest in a property exists, then this to can be done in court.

The above would help co-habitees, who move in with their partner, & in wanting to contribute to the home, pay things like utilities, buy food etc, whilst the partner who owns the property/has the mortgage, pays that themself, along with maintenance etc. Currently, if they split up, aftre many years of such an arrangement, then the partner not on the mortgage cannot show a beneficial interest in the house, as paying for food, running costs & utilities does not give them a beneficial interest. Thus they could pay the gas, elec, water, tv licence, council tax & do all the food shopping for 20+ years & if they never married, could be booted out on the whim of their partner, & they'd have no beneficial interest.

markharding557

All this could be avoided if people were required to make a legally binding agreement in the beginning,can it be that hard?

[Deleted User]

lemonjelly wrote: »

You have it wrong StevieJ, but you know that, don't you, you naughty little devil!;)

For my money, Hall has it way wrong in the majority of cases. Where biological parentage can be proven, then maintenance can & will be applied for & awarded. Only via the CSA or whatever they are called now. This was done with the express view to take pressure away from the courts service.

Where a beneficial interest in a property exists, then this to can be done in court.

The above would help co-habitees, who move in with their partner, & in wanting to contribute to the home, pay things like utilities, buy food etc, whilst the partner who owns the property/has the mortgage, pays that themself, along with maintenance etc. Currently, if they split up, aftre many years of such an arrangement, then the partner not on the mortgage cannot show a beneficial interest in the house, as paying for food, running costs & utilities does not give them a beneficial interest. Thus they could pay the gas, elec, water, tv licence, council tax & do all the food shopping for 20+ years & if they never married, could be booted out on the whim of their partner, & they'd have no beneficial interest.

If someone were to get married/(cohabit under proposed rules) and live in rented accommodation are their other assets still at risk in the event of divorce/split up?

IronWolf

Completely unnecessary, either sign a contract or get married. Otherwise tough luck if u don't protect yourself from getting screwed over.

[Deleted User]

Also could these rules if they became law be applied retrospectively to co-habiting in one of the partners homes or could it be avoided by them moving into rented accommodation?

[Deleted User]

markharding557 wrote: »

All this could be avoided if people were required to make a legally binding agreement in the beginning,can it be that hard?

Wouldn't that be the equivalent of a prenuptial agreement in which case aren't they essentially worthless in divorce cases?

Loughton_Monkey

I blame the 1882 Married Women's Property Act under which married women were, for the first time, allowed to own property and have money.

Wouldn't it be simpler just to repeal this?

vivatifosi

markharding557 wrote: »

All this could be avoided if people were required to make a legally binding agreement in the beginning,can it be that hard?

The problem is people don't realise how long-term arrangements become and the next thing they know they've been living with someone for 10 years and have no rights. Many people kind of bumble through life without planning (pensions, savings, children, anything...). I'm even beginning to wonder if its the norm.

lostinrates

[quote=[Deleted User];40871562]Wouldn't that be the equivalent of a prenuptial agreement in which case aren't they essentially worthless in divorce cases?[/QUOTE]


They are increasingly noticed AIUI...and my guess is they will, soon, hold some weight. It is important they be overrulable though...you cannot plan for everything....disability, long term ill health, children....mental breakdown job loss..industry collapse. Affaires and in the case of children you can make plans B, C and D for but it is important that the unforeseen plan E means things can be changed. For both parties.