Co-habiting couples warned of "common law marriage" myth

maman

A possibile solution would be civil partnership for all rather than the current situation where it only applies to gay couples.

Gloomendoom

maman wrote: »

A possibile solution would be civil partnership for all rather than the current situation where it only applies to gay couples.

How is that different to a marriage contract?

JayJay100

If you're engaged, I believe it gives you similar rights to being married, as you can take proceedings under Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882.

Gloomendoom

Only if you are “formally” engaged.

Whatever that means.

Linda32

Pixie5740 wrote: »

I saw this on the BBC website earlier:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42134722

Resolution carried out a survey which found two-thirds of cohabiting couples wrongly believe "common-law marriage" laws exist when dividing up finances.

I've been so called cohabiting for best part of 25 years and never thought it had any legal standing what so ever.

We both have a pair of wills (I think is the correct term) where we leave everything to the other in the event of the first death. But this seems to me to be no different to me having a will and leaving my share to the cats home!

The misconception might have arisen because of insurance companies asking you if you are a common-law partner but again it means nothing in law.

Mojisola

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Resolution carried out a survey which found two-thirds of cohabiting couples wrongly believe "common-law marriage" laws exist when dividing up finances.

I find it strange that people do believe this.

At what stage would each partner get rights to the other's finances - on the day you move in, after five years, only if one has stayed at home to provide childcare, etc?

WillowCat

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Having never been divorced (yet anyway) what do you find draconian about the divorce laws?

I've always had fairly ambivolent feelings about marriage perhaps because I've always been financially independent but when children were on the cards I felt more strongly about marriage.

The splitting of assets, whilst not quite a strict formula, leaves little room for differing circumstances (despite what S25 of the Marital Causes Act may state). Whether it is 'fair' depends really on whether you are the one getting fleeced or not.

My current partner has no assets, and is disabled. I have a mortgage free home and reasonable pension. In the current law, although I could argue that my assets pre-date the marriage, it would be quite likely if we were to marry then divorce that he would be awarded a substantial chunk of both (because of how 'needs' are interpreted). I am happy for him to share my home, and when I'm old enough for him to share in my pension income, but if we were to separate I do not see the fairness in continuing to maintain him into the future.

JayJay100

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Only if you are “formally” engaged.

Whatever that means.

As far as I know, it just means a known engagement, with a ring and an intention to marry at some point: you can't just rock up and say 'we were engaged, but no one knew.'

Silvertabby

I read somewhere that 'common law marriages' date from mediaeval times.

Back then, small villages didn't have their own resident priests - instead, they were served by 'mobile priests' (for want of a better expression!) who would visit the villages every 6 months or so to carry out funeral masses, weddings and christenings.

A couple who needed to get married urgently, for whatever reason, could be deemed 'married under common law' by the village elders - but that was only valid until the next visiting priest could marry them properly.

Silvertabby

If you're engaged, I believe it gives you similar rights to being married, as you can take proceedings under Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882. Posted by JayJay100

Not so - the Married Women's Property Act only applied to married women.

Are you getting confused with 'Breach of Promise'? Can't give you the dates, but it worked on the basis that an engaged woman who had been jilted was assumed to be 'damaged goods' and therefore unlikely to ever find herself a decent husband. She could therefore sue her ex-fiance for breach of promise (of marriage).