Unmarried Rights

Degenerate

vivatifosi wrote: »

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.

Indeed, but the problem is entirely the fault of those people who put themselves in these situations. It's not for the courts to force unwilling people to make a legal commitment to their relationship.

ILW

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

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?

Have to agree.

I saw a woman smoking a cigarette in the street the other day. No wonder the country is in the state it is.

lemonjelly

[quote=[Deleted User];40871338]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?[/QUOTE]

I'm not a family law solicitor, so can't answer definitively. However the principle is that when in a relationship, if you both put something in (capital, effort, time) you are entitled to a share of the proceeds.

Thus in theory, investments/assets held before, in principle remain the property of the single person. Assets built through the relationship, both parties have a claim to.


[quote=[Deleted User];40871512]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?[/QUOTE]

Rare as rocking horse do-do that any rules/laws are brought in retrospectively. Goes against the principles of natural justice.

lemonjelly

IronWolf wrote: »

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

Yeah, that is the basis for a loving, caring, trusting relationship.

Get real, we all know there are those out there who trot out lines like "If you loved me..." or "You trust me, don't you?"

And the classic "a contract isn't going to change how we feel about each other!"

lemonjelly

Degenerate wrote: »

Indeed, but the problem is entirely the fault of those people who put themselves in these situations. It's not for the courts to force unwilling people to make a legal commitment to their relationship.

But people don't alweays make decisions based on long term futures, but on what is/feels right at the time.

2 people can move in together, with the best intentions, to "try it out". 15 years later, they could still be there...

What is the solution? Refuse to cohabit unless marriage has taken place? What would that do to house prices?;)

mr_fishbulb

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?

Exactly. I bring a contract along with me whenever I go on a first date.

I get through a lot of them as, for some reason, I never seem to get a second date.

Eskimo12345

This worries me immensely.

I work very hard for a living; I'm well paid and I do the job I do for my future. I'm currently waiting on the result of an interview that would mean a few grand more a year, but much more responsibility and stress. I certainly didn't apply because I thought I would enjoy the job. I want it to have an even more comfortable future.
My girlfriend, who practically lives with me, earns half as much as I do, doing a job she loves. She could earn more elsewhere but does the job for enjoyment, not money.

In my view, under these proposals, if she moved in with me, after a few years she'd be entitled to my money. Money that, for five days a week, for years and years, I have worked my !!! off for. How is that fair?

When I get married, I will happily have the majority of my salary paid in to a joint account as we would be a team. It would then be 'our money'. Marriage would be a sign of my commitment; until that point, what's mine is mine, and what's hers is hers.

(I do like to treat her occasionally and don't resent that she earns less than me at all! I'm really happy that she loves her job and wish I could have my dream job of working in an independant hifi shop but taking a pay cut of thousands a year won't bode well for my future.)

justme111

So for giving someone a roof over his/her head the one will be punished for having to give away part of that roof once the relation breaks down.

macaque_2

[quote=[Deleted User];discussion/3026914]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[/QUOTE]


This forum seems to be attracting some very smart contributors these days.

Andy_L

The_Eskimo's_Donger wrote: »

My girlfriend, who practically lives with me, earns half as much as I do, doing a job she loves. ...
In my view, under these proposals, if she moved in with me, after a few years she'd be entitled to my money. Money that, for five days a week, for years and years, I have worked my !!! off for. How is that fair?.

"If cohabitation has been short and the contribution minimal, judges would not be sympathetic to a claim."
So she wouldn't be entitled to it