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

Malthusian

glentoran99 wrote: »

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

WillowCat will have plenty of time to dump the boyfriend while the laws are going through Parliament.

Tabbytabitha

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

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

"Or else fault" covers a pretty wide range of circumstances - the majority of divorces. Separation with consent is the odd one out in UK divorces, not the other way round.

Pixie5740

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.

I think "de facto relationships" sound dangerous. Why should people be automatically forced into contracts simply because they choose to live together?

Pixie5740

Judi wrote: »

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.

You have a lovely, romantic view of marriage but statistically 42% of marriages in the UK end in divorce. Those are pretty high odds.

System

Pixie5740 wrote: »

You have a lovely, romantic view of marriage but statistically 42% of marriages in the UK end in divorce. Those are pretty high odds.

Yes i know, i've been a divorcee too.

maman

maman wrote: »

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

Gloomendoom wrote: »

How is that different to a marriage contract?

I was assuming that some couples are put off by the idea of a traditional wedding and just want the relationship formalised. I was using the analogy that gay couples seemed to think that there was something more involved in marriage when they campaigned for it.


Surely there are ways of making sure neither party is penalised if a couple spilt up. Although DH and I are married if we weren't, we still have wills, separate incomes, separate savings, separate bank accounts, house in joint names etc etc.


I think the issues arise when children are involved. I don't know a great deal about how that works but can't a non resident parents be expected to support children whether they're married or not?


I suspect that most issues arise when women (and it generally is women) choose to give up work and become a SAHM and want the partner to fund that lifestyle choice. That's not really different to many of the financial issues in divorce

Mojisola

maman wrote: »

I was assuming that some couples are put off by the idea of a traditional wedding and just want the relationship formalised.

That is what the basic ceremony at an RO is for - no fuss, just a legal contract.

getmore4less

One big issue is the transferable nil rate bands.

A couple with assets over £325k(together not each) very careful IHT planning is needed.

esmy

maman wrote: »

I think the issues arise when children are involved. I don't know a great deal about how that works but can't a non resident parents be expected to support children whether they're married or not?

That's correct. It is immaterial whether parents are married or not in claims for child support and where there is a dispute about paternity, the CSA /CMA can order DNA testing. In the first incarnation of the CSA unmarried women who claimed state benefits and wouldn't (or couldn't) name the father of their child were penalised - a child born to a married couple was always assumed to be a child of that marriage and separated or divorced parents with care of children had any maintenance paid deducted from benefit income.

In my experience the only things that cannot be 'got around' in another way for unmarried couples are inheritance tax benefits, married tax allowance and some (not all) pension scheme benefits.

Gloomendoom

Pixie5740 wrote: »

You have a lovely, romantic view of marriage but statistically 42% of marriages in the UK end in divorce. Those are pretty high odds.

There is no official record of how many unmarried couple split up. If it is as high, or higher, than the number of married couples that split up, it would suggest that getting the extra protection that a marriage contract affords would be beneficial, particularly where there are children involved.