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

armchairexpert

Mojisola wrote: »

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?

In Australia, where these are called 'de facto relationships' it's living together for two years or if there are joint children of the relationship. At either of those points, the starting point for division of assets is 50:50 with the usual considerations taken for adjustments. This applies also to same sex couples who can't yet get married in Australia.

It's not a nebulous concept. You can absolutely have common law division of property laws that are delineated clearly.

Tabbytabitha

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

The need for fault if you don't want to wait five years to divorce an uncooperative partner would be my starter for 10. In fact, the very concept of "fault" in divorce, as well as the wait if you don't use it.

You only have to wait for 5 years in 1 specific circumstance, not in General.

glentoran99

WillowCat wrote: »

I imagine one of the main reasons that the marriage rates are down is the draconian 'divorce laws'.

I was married and have no intention of making the same mistake twice.

I now cohabit, and if any laws are passed which affect the distribution of assets when separating, then, if there's no opt out, it may well be bye bye boyfriend (even though I love him to bits).

be a bit late then, the laws will have been passed...

onomatopoeia99

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

You only have to wait for 5 years in 1 specific circumstance, not in General.

The specific circumstance of an uncooperative spouse. Two years with cooperation, or else fault.

Gloomendoom

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

The specific circumstance of an uncooperative spouse. Two years with cooperation, or else fault.

Who cares whose "fault" it is? It makes no difference at all to the outcome.

JayJay100

Silvertabby wrote: »

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).

No, not at all, but I do remember the 'Breach of Promise', from doing 'A' level law back in the day, mainly because of the lecturer's very blunt way of explaining it: the whole class was in hysterics, but we all got good marks in that particular exam question.

I'm going from the advice that was given by my solicitor when I was buying a house with a former partner before we were engaged; he took me to one side and told me to get engaged as soon as possible, as it gave me the same rights as a married woman; he actually wrote it down. It stuck in my head, as in a way, it took the shine off something that was really special, and at that point, I never thought I'd need it. It was also used by best mate to secure a 50/50 split on her home and business, when her partner wanted an 80/20 split in his favour; I'd told her what my solicitor had told me, and she instructed him instead of the firm she was using. The only thing that made me uncertain was if the law had updated in the last few years, but a quick internet search has shown that some companies are still referring to it.

Mojisola

armchairexpert wrote: »

In Australia, where these are called 'de facto relationships' it's living together for two years or if there are joint children of the relationship. At either of those points, the starting point for division of assets is 50:50 with the usual considerations taken for adjustments. This applies also to same sex couples who can't yet get married in Australia.

It's not a nebulous concept. You can absolutely have common law division of property laws that are delineated clearly.

You can - and Australia obviously has - but we don't in the UK so couples who live together here don't have any basis for assuming that their assets would be shared in the case of a split.

Top_Girl

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Only if you are “formally” engaged.

Whatever that means.

Facebook official...

System

Maybe i have read too much Mills and Boon but the thought of marrying someone or not to protect assets fills me with the utmost horror.

Think i'd best bow out now as im bound to get slated for my views.

fairy_lights

I don't see how giving rights to cohabiting couples would work, not everyone wants them for one thing and where would you draw the line? Would two platonic friends living together automatically be given the same rights?