the unromantic side of marrige

Mojisola

For anyone co-habiting, this is a useful site to read -

https://www.advicenow.org.uk/living-together/

Lots of straightforward information about living together.

vixarooni

My brother got divorced after a year of marriage, it really turned my against it but not everyone is the same. You guys have been going strong for 11 years and having children means you will always have an unbreakable bond whether you want it or not. If you loved this man enough to have children with him then walking down the aisle should be a walk in the park!

I would have thought? ha.

paddy's_mum

For those who are very confident that making a will in the other partner's favour is all that is needed, just remember that a will can be changed at any time without the knowledge or consent of the other person.

As things stand in this country at the moment, the rights of either spouse are well defined and protected by law and at the very least, decisions to change things are well and thoroughly debated through parliament.

We all need to trust the person that we share our lives with but as many a story on this site will testify, sometimes blind faith leaves a person terrifically disadvantaged. Marriage at least offers some degree of protection as well as being a public declaration of a couple's love and commitment.

For me, the moment a child is conceived is when I most strongly advocate marriage for it is too easy for a (usually) father to just disappear and leave mother holding the baby. OP - your present feelings of vulnerability are themselves putting strain into the relationship. That can't be a good thing, can it? Perhaps looked at like that, you have answered your own question. Good luck with arriving at a decision that is best for you and your family.

troglodyte

I have a question - Kimitatsu above says 'The quick answer Polyanna is yes you are better off. You are entitled to more than half of the house if you do divorce...' but this seems to imply that a wife is entitled to half her husband's house, is that right? Does it work the other way around as well? In that case it would seem that if the family home is owned by the man, a woman is better off getting married, but if it is owned by the woman, she is better off not marrying because then she is putting her home at risk while if she's unmarried and they split up the man just has to leave, unless he can prove he has contributed a substantial amount to the purchase or maintenance of the house.
If the house is owned jointly then each person is entitled to half, regardless of how much they have contributed to the cost of buying and maintaining it, whether they are married or not.
Can someone clarify all this for me please?

Primrose

I think individuals living together who are unmarried put themselves in a very vulnerable position financially and it's usually the woman who ends up in the worst situation, especially if she has children to support.. If your partner died without making a will, you would not necessary inherit anything. If his share of any property, savings or other assets went over the Inheritance Tax limit, there would be no exemption for you in the same way as if you were his married partner and if he died leaving an occupational pension fund and you are not the named beneficiary, you probably wouldn't receive any of that either. If your partner wants you to stay at home and not work and earn money, has he done the honourable thing and addressed all the above issues in a watertight legal way?
If not I would either want to protect myself by getting married (and a quiet ceremony need not cost a fortune) or get myself back to work where I could earn some money and start earning a pension in my own right. (Because if your partner died while you were unmarried, I don't think you would get any State pension on the back of his own contributions either). If you are having sleepless nights about the future of yourself and your children if you partner died or walked out on you, get yourself back to work now and take responsibility for yourself. Sadly I have seen too many women end up in the situation in which your friend finds herself and the hard answer is that the gift of hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, it doesn't pay the bills and help keep a roof over your head if disaster strikes. Trying to find a job if you've just been deserted, are struggling to cope with the mounting debts you may have been left with or have to find somewhere else to live would be extremely stressful. If these issues are worrying you, address them now and take personal responsibility for them, rather than leaving them to your partner, and you will then be able to face the future with a little more confidence.

margaretclare

kazmeister wrote: »

Hi

I too am in an unmarried relationship for 11 years with 1 child between us now aged 9. I also am worried about the 'why get married now' as I too have heard of loads splitting up after getting wed. I'm not sure what age you are, but my OH is only 5 years from retirement and there do seem to be financial implications to not being wed. My employers pay out a widows/widowers pension which my OH would NOT be able to get should anything happen to me, and I think should anything happen to him I would not get any of his pension. Now while I know it shouldnt be a reason to get wed it is certainly something to bear in mind for both of us, as why should we lose out because of a license

My brother recently got married - recently, beginning of last month!

He's always had a very cynical view of marriage....reasons. They've lived together for 20+ years and have 2 grown-up children. Also they're a bit...trendy lefty, I suppose you could call it.

I asked why and he explained that it was so that there would be no difficulties or problems with her inheriting his (considerable) pension, IHT, things like that. He thinks he'll be the one to die first because of family history. He just wants everything straightforward for her.

I must say, I resent the statement that someone made earlier in the thread, that 'unmarried people respect each other more'. What absolute and utter rubbish. DH and I are happily-married and have been since January 2002 although we got together in November 1997. Our relationship is built on trust and respect - love is the bonus.

When I was young, living together was spoken of as 'living over t'brush'. Marriage is not just 'a piece of paper', whatever anyone may say. As my brother has now recognised, the law does still give some rights and privileges to married people that it doesn't give to unmarried partners.

Kimitatsu

troglodyte wrote: »

I have a question - Kimitatsu above says 'The quick answer Polyanna is yes you are better off. You are entitled to more than half of the house if you do divorce...' but this seems to imply that a wife is entitled to half her husband's house, is that right? Does it work the other way around as well? In that case it would seem that if the family home is owned by the man, a woman is better off getting married, but if it is owned by the woman, she is better off not marrying because then she is putting her home at risk while if she's unmarried and they split up the man just has to leave, unless he can prove he has contributed a substantial amount to the purchase or maintenance of the house.
If the house is owned jointly then each person is entitled to half, regardless of how much they have contributed to the cost of buying and maintaining it, whether they are married or not.
Can someone clarify all this for me please?

Hiya

Now in theory that should be the way it should work but if you are married then the law starts at a 50/50 split and if you have children (as the OP does) then the children are allowed to stay in the property with the parent with care until the youngest is 17 or leaves full time education whichever is later. The law looks at the financial implications of both parties, in the OP's case as she was staying at home to look after the children this is seen as a contribution to the marriage and that she has given up her chance to work, provide a pension for herself etc, and that if she had not taken time out to have the children then she would not have that financial burden to catch up.

Equally the law looks at the pension provision for both parties, if the husband (in this case) has a good pension but the wife does not then that can also be allocated against the house. So in reality in this case the OP would have been better off being married in the event of divorce. In the event of death of her spouse she would be much better off as the taxable limit has been raised and transfers between husband and wife are tax free up to that limit (cant remember it off the top of my head) whereas if you only jointly own part of the house then it becomes part of the estate which you then have to pay tax on. If you have shares, transfers between husband and wife are tax free.

As Primrose has said you have no call on your partners pension, life assurance etc if you are not named as a beneficiary, and the company involved agrees to uphold that.

So in answer to your question, if you as the woman in the relationship were the main breadwinner and your partner was the stay at home parent, then no it may not be worth you getting married financially if you believed that at some point you may go seperate ways. But if you wanted to protect your interests as a couple then it is still legally a better way to protect those interests than living together.

stardoman

I think I've posted about this before. A friend of mine had happily lived with her partner for 5 years when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Within days he was admitted to hospital and given a first dose of chemo. His body could not take it and a few days later he died. There had been no time for him to make a will. He was 37 and it all happened very fast.

They had been in the process of moving house. They had actually moved out of the flat they were living in and were in rented accomodation while waiting for their new house to be built. Because there was no will, everything went to his mum. It transpired that she had never liked my friend and she did not want her at the funeral. So she did not tell her when and where it was to take place. B. only found out because a friend was disgusted by the mum's behaviour and phoned B. to tell her when the funeral was. During the short time G. was alive between diagnoses and death, they discussed the type of funeral G. wanted. However, the type of funeral chosen by his mum was quite different and this really upset B.

Unfortuately, even though the flat had originally been B's the money had been deposited in her boyfriend's account and the mum inherited it. My friend was able to prove the flow of money and did eventually recover some of it via a solicitor. But this was stress that she did not need and obviously, she had to pay the legal fees involved.

Marriage offers protection and is not just a piece of paper.

Mandy.

Pssst

pollyanna wrote: »

is it finacially better to married ? iv been with my partner for over 11yrs we never got married because we have always managed to spend money on other things that seemmed more important we both used to work full time and we bought our own home together but since having children iv only ever worked part time and for the last 2yrs iv not worked at all not because i have not wanted to it's that oh prefers me at home! i dont really have a big problem with that as he does earn a good salary now.
but a freind of mine her husband has just walked in after 20 odd yrs of marrige and says he wants out and its really just kind of brought it home to me that i could be in a very vunrable position and need to know how i can protect myself for the future should this ever happen to me

Pollyanna-as someone else has pointed out,marriage can spell the end to a good relationship !

You and your partner have presumably reached a balance in your relationship that works on various levels and marriage might just tip that balance!

Whether married or not,your partner would still have financial responsibility for your children and to a lesser extent,you,if you split.

What i would advise though is that you get yourself back into circulation with regard to work etc. Of course this is linked to childrens ages,child care etc and so you might have to balance this with work.

Fast forward 16 years or so when kids are sufficiently grown up. If you have not worked for that length of time you will be greatly disadvantaged and possibly even much less confident. also your marketable skills will have dwindled and be much less valuable/in demand.

In addition,the extra money would be useful AND more importantly it will be YOUR money !