To not be able to believe that intelligent people think that common law marriage still exists?

TimoteiChaletpants · 2024-04-27T07:28:30+00:00

A group of educated/intelligent people advising an unmarried person that there was a certain amount of rights under common law that they would be entitled to if the had been together for an amount of time. my understanding is only marriage provides a partner with any legal or financial rights AIBU?

Original poster

TimoteiChaletpants · 28/04/2024 10:35

your rights are not something you can afford to be complacent about

OP posts:

Dery · 28/04/2024 09:37

This:

“Common law marriage does exist in some other countries so perhaps people have heard something about it but don’t realise it doesn’t apply in the UK.”

Sharptonguedwoman · 28/04/2024 09:26

AnotherNightAnotherName · 27/04/2024 09:49

Many people who meet partners in later life would want their inheritance to go to their children and not the partner which is one reason they don’t marry.

It sounds like the partner had many years rent-free and got a pay-off too, so she benefitted financially from the relationship, looking on the bright-side.

Show quote history

I don't know that level of detail, sadly. I think they both had money but the house was his. Both had children. Just a mess because of the absence of a will.

LondonFox · 27/04/2024 21:13

As someone mentioned, in many countries if partners live together for certain amount of time they have simmilar rights as if they were married.
In Croatia it is three years of living together or sooner if they have a child.

Chersfrozenface · 27/04/2024 21:02

Which site is that?

ComtesseDeSpair · 27/04/2024 20:08

Chersfrozenface · 27/04/2024 18:01

They don't. The categories are Married, Single, Civil partnered, Cohabiting, Divorced/dissolved, Separated, Widowed/ surviving civil partner.

I've just checked.

Show quote history

Common law definitely there. It might be teamed up with cohabiting, but it’s still being used in terminology as if it’s something which exists.

To not be able to believe that intelligent people think that common law marriage still exists?

DaftyLass · 27/04/2024 19:17

Yes you can

You can opt out of being automatically common law in BC
Common law spouses can opt out by entering into a written Cohabitation Agreement that is properly signed and witnessed. A Cohabitation Agreement is like a prenuptial agreement or a marriage contract.Jun 13, 2023

CantFindTheBeat · 27/04/2024 19:07

@DaftyLass

As @burnoutbabe said - can you opt out?

burnoutbabe · 27/04/2024 18:42

DaftyLass · 27/04/2024 18:04

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER it one year for tax purposes, married rights after two

What is a common law spouse entitled to in BC?Since 2013, BC’s Family Law Act treats common law couples the same as married couples for the purposes of property and debt division if they split up.
Couples who have been living together for two years share the same legal rights as married couples in BC, including a 50/50 split of debts and assets—excluding pre-relationship property, inheritances and gifts.
A partner in a common law relationship can also be entitled to spousal support.
Learn how to create a legal will in BC →

Blimey.

So no way to opt out? Or can richer people just not shack up with partners on this state?

CaputDraconis · 27/04/2024 18:21

I work in an industry that deals with death and the amount of people who state they are married and then can't produce a marriage certificate is astounding.

When I inform them being legally wed and just cohabiting mean totally different things under our legislation they are shocked. They normally reply "but we lived together for 30+ years", though means nothing.

Ofcourseshecan · 27/04/2024 18:05

Chersfrozenface · 27/04/2024 18:01

They don't. The categories are Married, Single, Civil partnered, Cohabiting, Divorced/dissolved, Separated, Widowed/ surviving civil partner.

I've just checked.

Show quote history

Thanks for clearing that up!

DaftyLass · 27/04/2024 18:04

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER it one year for tax purposes, married rights after two

What is a common law spouse entitled to in BC?Since 2013, BC’s Family Law Act treats common law couples the same as married couples for the purposes of property and debt division if they split up.
Couples who have been living together for two years share the same legal rights as married couples in BC, including a 50/50 split of debts and assets—excluding pre-relationship property, inheritances and gifts.
A partner in a common law relationship can also be entitled to spousal support.
Learn how to create a legal will in BC →

Making A Will in BC: Everything You Need To Know

Getting a legal will in BC is easier than you think! We cover what makes a will legal plus answer all your burning questions around making your own will.

https://www.willful.co/legal-wills-in-british-columbia

Chersfrozenface · 27/04/2024 18:01

Ofcourseshecan · 27/04/2024 17:45

It’s astounding that they would perpetuate this myth! Unhelpful to any cohabitee who thinks s/he has some kind of spouse-like legal status.

Show quote history

They don't. The categories are Married, Single, Civil partnered, Cohabiting, Divorced/dissolved, Separated, Widowed/ surviving civil partner.

I've just checked.

Ofcourseshecan · 27/04/2024 17:45

ComtesseDeSpair · 27/04/2024 09:22

I don’t think it’s entirely surprising. I was plugging details into Compare the Market (or Money Supermarket, I can’t remember which) recently for home insurance quotes. One of the options available for marital status was “Common law.” I’ve also seen it as an option in the past on a range of forms provided by the local authority and my local NHS Trust. If regulated financial products and statutory bodies are perpetuating the myth, if only in terminology, that there’s such a thing as a common law partnership, suggesting that only unintelligent people might believe it to be true is unfair.

Edited

It’s astounding that they would perpetuate this myth! Unhelpful to any cohabitee who thinks s/he has some kind of spouse-like legal status.

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 27/04/2024 17:41

DaftyLass · 27/04/2024 17:29

Here in Canada you have common law rights after one year of cohabitation.

What rights does that confer? Equal shares of finances/property if you split? TBH I’d have thought that would be pushing it, after just a year!

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 27/04/2024 17:40

GoldenTrout · 27/04/2024 09:57

my understanding is only marriage provides a partner with any legal or financial rights

To be fair, you can gain some legal rights by other means, e.g. formal agreements and trusts. But not just by living together.

A official civil partnership gives the same rights nowadays, doesn’t it?

DaftyLass · 27/04/2024 17:29

Here in Canada you have common law rights after one year of cohabitation.

Twoshoesnewshoes · 27/04/2024 17:25

@LordEmsworth OP is, I think, saying people may often be ill informed and believe they have rights due to common law marriage.
my post was saying that there are people who use common law marriage as a way to describe their commitment and set - up, not making any further assumptions about legal implications.

penjil · 27/04/2024 12:14

TwoLeftSocksWithHoles · 27/04/2024 11:25

So where does that leave the 'jumping over the broom' contingent? 😳

It probably leaves them at a distinct legal, financial and social disadvantage.

A "common-law" couple are technically 2 single people living together. Nothing more.

No safety net.

penjil · 27/04/2024 12:11

AnotherNightAnotherName · 27/04/2024 09:49

Many people who meet partners in later life would want their inheritance to go to their children and not the partner which is one reason they don’t marry.

It sounds like the partner had many years rent-free and got a pay-off too, so she benefitted financially from the relationship, looking on the bright-side.

Show quote history

Surely a will would stipulate whom the inheritance goes to, married or unmarried.

Precipice · 27/04/2024 11:28

There are some rights for cohabitants, at least in Scotland. In respect of claims against the estate following death, the cohabitant can in theory get up to what the spouse would have received. In practice, there's been two cases and in both, the cohabitant got something, though less than they would have received had they been married.

TwoLeftSocksWithHoles · 27/04/2024 11:25

So where does that leave the 'jumping over the broom' contingent? 😳

LordEmsworth · 27/04/2024 11:25

Twoshoesnewshoes · 27/04/2024 09:34

I heard many people of my parents generation describe themselves as common law spouses. What they meant was that they considered themselves married in terms of commitment, and didn’t need a piece of paper to prove it.

my godmother was one of these, they were both on the deeds of the house and had other legal protection.

its a massive assumption that people don’t understand or are a bit thick because they haven’t got married.

to me personally I would consider someone is more capable of independent thinking if they are NOT married.

just to add, I am married, but not for any legal reason at all - I had that all sorted as a long term partner.

there can be a really sneery tone on her sometimes towards people who aren’t married, it can come across as bitter imo.

That's not what the OP is saying though, is it... 🙄

AnneLovesGilbert · 27/04/2024 11:24

They’ll all be happy that Labour is promising to introduce it.

Legal obligations to people should be actively opted in to. In England they rightly are.

SockQueen · 27/04/2024 11:19

Riverlee · 27/04/2024 10:00

My niece isn’t married to her partner - I think his parents had a messy divorce. They have two children. They’re an intelligent, mid thirties, couple.

There are millions of couples living together like this in the UK right now. But the important point is that they have to realise the difference in legal status between that and being married, and take steps to protect themselves if needed. Your niece may well be very intelligent, and have made a fully informed choice. But not everyone is, and every single week on Mumsnet there are women who've ended up screwed over because they thought they had more rights than they do.