What do you think would happen if Common Law Wife / Husband WAS a thing? /

[DontDrinkDontSmokeWhatDoIDo]

There are often posts on here where (usually) women have fallen into financial difficulties through living with but not being married to their partners.

Often it's is a nasty surprise to them that despite living as 'man & wife', they don't have the rights that come with legally being married.

It got me thinking - what if the concept of Common Law wife / husband DID exist, and that after, say, 5 years of living together, similar rights to marriage DID apply?

I can see loads of outcomes, and I'm not entirely sure it would be a bad idea.

What do you think would happen ?

The problem is those protections happen as part of a contract and you can’t end up in a legal contract without actively agreeing to it.

Do you mean what would happen in terms of number of marriages?

I think a lot of break ups would happen at 4 years 11 months! People who want to avoid committing to marriage now will probably continue to avoid the legal rights and responsibilities.

And I agree that you can't be entered into a contract by default.

It is an interesting question as I think there would be a huge range of opinions about mow much of what is in a marriage contract should be included from both a financial and legal separation point of view.

I wouldn't like it at all, it should be a contract of choice not default but I would like there to be more education about all the ways marriage changes things.

@Fitforforty

The problem is those protections happen as part of a contract and you can’t end up in a legal contract without actively agreeing to it.

Do you mean what would happen in terms of number of marriages?

I think, in my view, it would obviously be a massive shock / nightmare
to those partners who wanted to live as a family without giving the protection that comes from the marriage contract.

As a PP has just said - the countdown to the 5 year mark could mean many partners put their cards on the table before the deadline.

Maybe there could be a type of 'opt out' clause that both parties needed to agree to.

That WOULD mean, though, that the disadvantaged partner would be very clear about the situation.

@Themostwonderfultimeoftheyear don't we have organ donation in England as a default opt in?

A mess.

There should be better education around marriage (a contract to be opted into) and far harsher penalties and enforcement for financially absent parents (CMS is a joke). There's arguably also a huge societal gap around a woman's wages being seen as 'paying for childcare' etc., which starts a slippery slope (and some women, frankly, not thinking through the repercussions of becoming completely financially dependent on someone they have no legal ties to until after it goes wrong).

But I don't think the answer to that is forcing people into a legally binding contract.

What that would do is marry people off against their will. I wouldn’t ever marry again because I don’t want to give a man any rights over my children’s family home. This would take my choice away.

I believe so wizzy, I should have said people shouldn't be entered into a contract by default.

@Themostwonderfultimeoftheyear

And I agree that you can't be entered into a contract by default.

Let's say, for arguments sake, that a bill was passed that enabled 'rights of responsibility' to ensue after 5 years partner cohabitation, unless both parties formally gave them up.

It would mean denying people who don't want to marry the ability to live with someone.

I can also imagine disputes around exactly when the 5 year period started - what about the 6 months when he was staying over 4 nights a week but still technically had his own flat?

It does exist in some countries, where you acquire the same rights as a wife after living together for 9 or 11 years.

I was quite baffled it didn’t exist in the UK.

@DoYouRememberTheInnMiranda

I can also imagine disputes around exactly when the 5 year period started - what about the 6 months when he was staying over 4 nights a week but still technically had his own flat?

Exactly! A marriage date is very clear.

@KarmaNoMore

It does exist in some countries, where you acquire the same rights as a wife after living together for 9 or 11 years.

I was quite baffled it didn’t exist in the UK.

Do you know which countries, @KarmaNoMore ?

How would you prove anyone had lived together for 5 years, where would the date be recorded.
There are many ways married people live together, how would you prove ‘ living as married’, would you have to pool incomes, some married couples don’t.
How many days a week would you have to spend together, how would that affect people who work away?
It’s just not workable.

I can also imagine disputes around exactly when the 5 year period started

Well if 2 single people move in together then both names are on the council tax bill, so the 1st bill with both names could be used as a starting point I would have thought.

Well if 2 single people move in together then both names are on the council tax bill, so the 1st bill with both names could be used as a starting point I would have thought.

Doesn’t that also apply to lodgers?

Actually I can also predict an increase in cocklodgers. I know of a number of men who’ve moved in with a single mother just because she had a house. This would only increase. Rest assured men will always make sure the law works in their favour.

A lot of relationships start by one person staying over with the other then gradually more and more, the second name wouldn't necessarily get put on the council tax. We didn't officially live together until we had been married for 9 months.

I think it also protects people's properties - imagine, for instance, a woman with two kids in her own home. Meets a lovely man, who moves in, but they don't marry to protect the woman's interests for her and her children.

If couples want the protection of being married they can get married. It does not have to be a full blown wedding, it can be a quick ten minute appointment at the local town hall during a lunch break.... But if you are living with someone, long term, and they DON'T want to get married, you should ask yourself why and take steps to protect yourself against suddenly being homeless.

And we should be teaching this in schools.

What if your partner has a fling and moves out for a bit. Would the clock start again?

Or, if your partner has a bit on the side so isn't 'exclusive'? Suppose you didn't know about this and assumed that you were exclusive?

Would you have to live together fulltime?

I can see the legal profession rubbing their hands together with glee.

Doesn’t that also apply to lodgers

Yes but would the same lodger still be there after 5 years?

I would not be in favour of this. It would be a nightmare to administer.

We would need a lot more 1 & 2 bed houses because people would be less keen to share. I would have taken much longer to move in with someone if it was going to put my & ds's financial security at risk.