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 ?

My question would always be what if the relationship started before 16/18? Would you count that time even though they aren't old enough to legally marry?

A lot of casual on/off boyfriends and girlfriends will be taking children's rightful inheritances. Housemates or best friends will be claiming relationships in the event of deaths for the same reason.

If you want the benefits of a contract, get a marriage contract.

There's common law marriage in Finland. It doesn't get the same rights as marriage, but it does give a bit more than just a relationship. A common law relationship is defined by a couple being registered to the same address for at least 5 years (the 5 years requirement doesn't apply if they have a child together and the father is registered as the father). It doesn't entitle either party to property the other owned before the relationship (I don't think marriage does either though) but it does entitle them to the option to ask for a distribution of joint assets if they are having trouble deciding how to split the things they own together, and one party can claim compensation if by their work or funds they helped the other become richer (e.g. buy a house but without their name being put on the deeds).

We'd get a situation where savvy property owners (probably, but not always, mostly men) would get their prospective cohabitee to sign away their rights because of being "prudent" and "sensible".

Meanwhile other property owners (probably, but not always, mostly women) would be told that such a contract "wasn't romantic" and showed that she "didn't trust him" and meant that "she was planning to leave him" so they wouldn't do it and would get fleeced.

and I'm not entirely sure it would be a bad idea.

I am absolutely clear that it would be a bad idea. If I want to get married, I get married. If I don't, I don't.

Nothing bad about that.

A woman I know in Australia lost half her house and half her pension to a man who owned two houses. He had moved in to her home ten years later they separated and he went after half her house and half her pension. There was no sign of his two houses, she thinks his accountant brother helped this man hide his assets.

This poor woman had to sell her home and give this creep half of everything. The judge in this no divorce dispute wouldn’t believe her and she couldn’t prove anything.

Having to get a solicitor and sign off in front of a judge so your ex partner can’t come after any more of your newly acquired assets at a later date is expensive, all because you lived with someone.

Meanwhile other property owners (probably, but not always, mostly women) would be told that such a contract "wasn't romantic" and showed that she "didn't trust him" and meant that "she was planning to leave him" so they wouldn't do it and would get fleeced
you say that but I think women generally are more clued up
and self-possesed these days?

Pretty sure it IS a thing in Scotland!

My friend had to to get a prenup (also a thing in Scotland) when her boyfriend moved into her house.

Genuinely don't understand what people would hope to achieve by this that wouldn't just be easier to get married.

The only people I know who don't 'believe' in marriage are those who don't want to get married for various reasons (financial vulnerability, not in love, family disapproval to.) so therefore would surely avoid a common law marriage with the same enthusiasm.

@Ultimatecougar

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.

This!

OP, you talk about the rights that marriage brings, but what about the liabilities?

The important default is that parents are legally responsible for supporting their children, irrespective of marital status.

For adults: a clear choice, marriage and the ramifications of being in a legal partnership with shared assets, or co-habiting.

Non married Couples can choose to find ways to achieve what they want from the pick and mix of options available: buy a house together as Joint Tenants or as Tenants In Common according to choice. Have joint bank accounts and savings, or not. Name each other as beneficiaries on their pension , or name the kids.

Outrageous for the law, in a democracy, to confer a legal contract on anyone. Just because a few people don’t research the facts.

@KarmaNoMore

Perhaps we women should teach by example. Being a SAHM can teach your children that the correct thing is for the man to bring the income and the woman to stay at home once children arrive

The correct thing to do? Really? Wow

Australia - A de facto relationship is defined in Section 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 . The law requires that you and your former partner, who may be of the same or opposite sex, had a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis. However, your relationship is not a de facto relationship if you were legally married to one another or if you are related by family. Relationships needs to be two years. Or you can meet this criteria you meet one of the following four gateway criteria
That the period for the de facto relationship is at least 2 years
That there is a child in the de facto relationship
That the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory
When assessing property or custodial claims in cases of a breakdown of a relationship, it is recognised that significant contributions were being made by one party and the failure to issue an order would result in a serious injustice.

And no, the world hasn't caved in

The correct thing to do? Really Wow

You are taking the wrong end of the stick @alwayswrighty

I’m obviously saying that while many of us take a step back to assume the main responsibility for the children, our highly educated daughters will continue to put themselves in a position of financial dependence that makes them vulnerable, while our sons will continue to expect their partners to take over with child rearing and house chores while they devote themselves to their careers.

We talk a lot about equality but we are really a long way off. Women are achieving more and more at work but that equality has not been mirrored at home. We are not in the 1950s, but women are under more pressure these days. Dads may drop the kids in school, take them out on the weekend , cook on Sundays and put a wash load here and there, while the woman works full time and is expected to continue to take the full mental load of running the house and caring for the children until she starts to crack with the pressure and decides she needs a less stressful job, goes part time or stops working altogether.

So that’s why some countries have common law wife regulations, so the man cannot leave a woman unprotected after years of raising his children and sacrificing herself to support his career. It is all about valuing the woman’s contribution to the family unit.

I think there would be a lot of break ups at 4 yrs 6 months.

This could be a good thing, as it would mean people were rebuilding lives before more years were lost.

But I don't think that's a good enough reason to make a change.

People shouid have the right to just live together without ties.

What we need is better education - within the existing SRE provision - that spells out the difference between marriage, CP and cohabiting. So that people choose based on the legal facts and not on myths.

NakedBanana it's not a 'thing' in Scotland, nor is a prenup. What your friend would have had was agreement by her partner not to make any claim on her house as legally he could claim a proportion of it's worth for any improvements he made, which could be anything from decorating to paying for an extension. I checked this out when cohabiting with my boyfriend (at the time)

@DontDrinkDontSmokeWhatDoIDo

I'm old and have been married for 22 years so I'm not thinking about me.

Just reading a fair amount of threads recently and it feels that a commitment or agreed non-commitment, one way or the other, would give each party more clarity on where they stand.

What more clarity than a contract?

Gullible women who fall for the “I will propose when the time is right” line are the issue here. I’m not sure that forcing a contract on other couples who’ve made rational joint decisions about marriage is the way forward.

It would benefit Muslim women who have the Islamic but not civil marriage ceremony.

I do wish schools would cover the legal implications of marriage v cohabitation for all teenagers, so girls clearly understand the stupidity of being financially dependent on a man who can throw them out without a shilling. So many poor gullible women post here on MN, apparently shocked that after a ten year “romantic relationship” they can be thrown out of their home, despite contributing to the bills, as it was all in the husband’s name.

I am imagining there would be some people, usually men, who would in a way be bigamists.

I’d want to see joint residency of DC after the inevitable split as the legal default.

Standard in lots of Europe now - men can’t get out of paying or parenting.

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

I've had the same lodger for almost 10 years. I prefer living with multiple other adults, which has made me think about how common law works in countries that have this with households that have more than 2 adults. It's not really something I've looked into before. Would we be in a way bigamists, or need to get a 'non-marriage declaration' after a certain point or if either my spouse or I died to keep the legal situation the same?

There have been some movements encouraging particularly older people who end up isolated to live with others, would that end up becoming a legal minefield/just another way for scam artists to take advantage/just help perpetuate the issues of loneliness with people fearing those things if you can't just live with someone without having to find ways to prove your relationship status?

I agree with pp that there is a need for better understanding on what marriage is and the legalities around it beyond 'a bit of paper' as often comes up in marriage threads, but I think common law marriage could make as many problems as it solves. It shifts around the benefits, risks, and responsibilities, but it doesn't handle how knowledge of the law is used to manipulate others in relationships.

If someone married (who worked away a lot, or had a city crash pad etc) had a long affair with a live in lover in their other home ie. Wife and family in the country home at weekends and holidays, lived in his london flat for week day living with a lover. Or had a secret second family (which does very much happen), would this create a situation where he was a legal bigamist despite only one marriage? If he and his lover split, does his wife lose half her house?

I have been married. I don't want to marry again, ever. I don't want the protectiins (or in my case massive financial issues...) caused by marriage. I don't think I should be forced to live alone for the rest of my life, or be 'married' off against my will or consent. If people want to force the issue at 5 years (or whatever selected length of time), then they absolutely should! Issue ultimatums, have discussions or whatever with their partner (which you'd hope would happen prior to the common law marriage date anyway...), but don't force others into marriage because your partner wont commit.

I think it'd be a terrible idea but, to correct something earlier on this thread, there is such a thing as a tacit contract - there are established situations in employment law and housing law, for example, where people gain employment rights/security of tenure after a period of time with certain conditions in place. It's not a route you'd recommend to anyone - not least because of the likelihood of needing to go to court to enforce your rights - but it is a thing.

Absolutely, I agree that I would like to see the implications covered in school and other sources of information for people growing up. And by implications I mean the simple financial realities.

Everything I heard on the subject (until I found Cosmopolitan magazine ) was about 'what people would say' and the shame around having babies (which were considered an inevitable consequence ) out of wedlock. The phrase 'giving away her all' was a big feature of these talks.

I absolutely knew that I didn't want to get married, which meant having to run a household for the benefit of someone else, the all powerful husband. Really reliable contraception and a good career worked for me.

However, anyone with a strong desire to have children should really have the risks around being financially dependent on someone else made routinely obvious.

As a contribution to society overall as well as to the individual and their children.