Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Common law wife rights - Labour policy

87 replies

LavenderfortheBees · 09/10/2023 12:12

Apologies if I've missed an existing thread on this.

Was looking at the news story about Marina Wheeler being appointed whistle-blower tsar by Labour looking at sexual harassment and buried in the stories was this gem:

Labour would also seek to give common-law wives who live with partners the same rights as married women should their relationship end.

I have googled and can't find any more information on this proposed policy.

Now I know women who have children unmarried and give up work get screwed over if they don't have their name on the house and the relationship breaks down - but surely that is a known risk?

They won't just be able to do it for women - it'll have to work both ways.

I earn well and own a home. My ex didn't work for years and I supported him for years to 'make it big' before finally kicking his lazy arse out. No kids. I owed him nothing luckily as we never married but under this policy would he have been entitled to a share of my house and pension?

Similar with current DP who is hardworking but doesn't earn as much as me and has fewer savings. He contributes to my house bills but (rightly) less than I pay and way less than equivalent rent and bills would be. I wouldn't have agreed to live together if it put my significant equity at risk which would be an awful shame as we love living together. No kids and I have no intention of marrying. He is provided for if I get run over by a bus but if we split, I don't have to pay him off (or him me).

What do we think? I will be very angry if this becomes law as it takes my choices away. If I wanted to marry, I would marry.

OP posts:
SeulementUneFois · 09/10/2023 13:06

Sconehenge · 09/10/2023 13:02

In NZ this is the law! People can easily “opt out” by making a relationship property agreement before they reach the threshold (think it’s living together for 2 or 3 years). So it doesn’t take anyone’s rights away but you do have to opt out. I think it’s actually better as forces you to think about the issue and stops men dragging their feet about marriage

Show quote history

Thanks for the info @Sconehenge !

Can you "properly" opt out with the relationship property agreement though?
Or is it like a pre-nup, in that it can be overridden, e.g. by circumstances etc.?
(Outside of changes it itself would allow for.)

GunboatDiplomacy · 09/10/2023 13:06

At the bottom of the Guardian article it says.
This article was amended on 9 October 2023 to remove a reference to “common-law wives”.

loislovesstewie · 09/10/2023 13:07

But people won't opt out will they? For lots of reasons including pressure from one party. Look, getting married is if you like a positive thing, both parties have to agree, there is a law about forced marriage. But having to actively say' I'm not going to enter into a common law arrangement '? I can just see it causing issues when one party is pressing the other to agree.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Family law General money
AnSolas · 09/10/2023 13:09

Ireland has had that on the books since 2010 when the government hitched it to civil partnerships
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/24/enacted/en/html

A 5 year relationship or 2 years with children will give rise to a claim against property

Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/24/enacted/en/html

Gettingbysomehow · 09/10/2023 13:10

If they insist on doing that I'll never live with a man again. I haven't worked hard for over 40 years and bought my own house for some bloke to take it from me.
It will work both ways you can be sure of that.

Ponderingwindow · 09/10/2023 13:10

people should not be treated as married by default. There is a simple procedure for creating a legal partnership. It’s just like filing to create a business.

what needs to happen is an education campaign to help people recognize that marriage has never really been about romance or religion.

TrashedSofa · 09/10/2023 13:12

Sconehenge · 09/10/2023 13:03

No one would get screwed over as you will be able to legally opt out. Sort of like a pre nup but without marriage.

Show quote history

You've just assumed the existence of an opt out there. Certainly some countries have this but it doesn't follow that it would happen here and nor does the article say that.

Also, some people would inevitably get screwed over, because the fact that a provision exists doesn't mean everyone will be aware of, understand and use it. As with marriage and CP now, in fact.

There are always going to be some people who for whatever reason don't or can't get themselves in the legal situation they want. Hence it in fact is very much a question of which cohort gets screwed over.

ZebraD · 09/10/2023 13:12

Actually thinking about it. My divorce is a classic. My exH did not live with me for iver 3 years. We had a child together. He was in the army so lived away and visited. Had his own address and lived in a house rather than barracks. However, when we divorced, the judge decided (upon exH insistence that he did live with me despite not giving me any money for me or as maintenance for DD) that he was allowed to consider us a living together and therefore gave him half of the equity which was 37.5k that I had 56 days to pay up. Despite in actual fact him living with me for under 3 years! V expensive divorce! It doesn’t matter what the law says, it’s guidance and anyone can set a precedence! We are living in a very corrupt world!

bonzaitree · 09/10/2023 13:13

As the higher earning party I’m very very much against this!!!

Why should a bf get husband rights just for living in my house?!

anniegun · 09/10/2023 13:15

Lots of men currently stringing their partners along about marriage are not going to be happy about this

bonzaitree · 09/10/2023 13:16

anniegun · 09/10/2023 13:15

Lots of men currently stringing their partners along about marriage are not going to be happy about this

Very sexist for you to assume men are the higher earning ones.

NotSuchASmugMarried · 09/10/2023 13:18

All this will achieve is to make the housing shortage worse. People will be even less likely to live together thus putting further strain on the housing market.

Actually, that'll be brilliant for home-owners.

pikkumyy77 · 09/10/2023 13:22

So ask boyfriends to maintain their own home?

Common law in many places protects the more vulnerable person in the event of a breakdown in a long term relationship. Traditionally the more vulnerable party has been the woman both because if she had a strong social position she could have commanded marriage and because children and increasing age were seen as handicaps to her in the event the relationship dissolved. Men were understood to have more choices financially and in terms of future partnerships than the woman.

The tide had turned, perhaps, for some of you. But you are basically saying that as the person with more security and wealth you don’t choose to create security for your partner. There will always be ways of making sure wealthy people keep control over their assets. Perhaps you will just have to maintain to residences. Or throw your boyfriends out for 20 days each month.

TrashedSofa · 09/10/2023 13:22

SeulementUneFois · 09/10/2023 13:06

Thanks for the info @Sconehenge !

Can you "properly" opt out with the relationship property agreement though?
Or is it like a pre-nup, in that it can be overridden, e.g. by circumstances etc.?
(Outside of changes it itself would allow for.)

Show quote history

That's a really interesting point.

Because in England and Wales, I believe it's different in Scotland, previous agreements can be overridden depending on the interests of DC. That's a principle that applies to prenuptial agreements. It's even possible for inheritance to form part of a marital pot at divorce, again if DC welfare requires it. It's not hard to foresee situations where an opt out might be challenged because of children's welfare, especially as we have TOLATA claims already for cohabitants so there's already that principle.

WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps · 09/10/2023 13:24

It’s bollocks that will never see the light of day. It’s just sound bites.

The law has been adjusted already (through case law) to allow trusts to play a part where a partner - usually a woman - has substantially contributed to the household financially even if the other partner has never agreed to any shared equity in property. If the non-owner hasn’t contributed, tough.

So far as homelessness/abandonment goes, no government can solve that. If you live in a home without your name on it, you made your choice. And the much more deserving case for government to look at and do something about is of renters’ rights anyway.

tasslesated · 09/10/2023 13:28

Janieforever · 09/10/2023 12:16

There is no such thing as a common law wife, so if they can’t even get that right, they have no chance, isn’t kier a lawyer? Do they think the public are idiots?

That would by why they're seeking to change it...

fearfuloffluff · 09/10/2023 13:29

Sounds sensible to me. Loads of people think they will be somehow legally protected if a relationship breaks down and find out the hard way.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be talking about identical rights to those of married couples.

TrashedSofa · 09/10/2023 13:29

The law has been adjusted already (through case law) to allow trusts to play a part where a partner - usually a woman - has substantially contributed to the household financially even if the other partner has never agreed to any shared equity in property. If the non-owner hasn’t contributed, tough.

It has, but it's very difficult and expensive to challenge so it's of limited use to couples who aren't higher income. It also reognises much less in the way of contributions than this new idea. I'm not saying it'll happen, not at all, but the proposal sounds quite different to what we have now.

tasslesated · 09/10/2023 13:30

If this makes people think twice about moving in together, it could conceivably save some children from abuse and even death.

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 09/10/2023 13:32

FictionalCharacter · 09/10/2023 12:37

Hopefully they are not using that terminology. The article doesn’t, it says “unmarried women who live with their partners”.

Show quote history

Interesting order there. Not ‘unmarried women whose partners live with them’. ( because that might be implying that women might be the home owner and the major contributor, and we can’t have that, oh no no no)

Marina married Boris though….

LakeTiticaca · 09/10/2023 13:40

Many people are under the misapprehension that marriage is " just a piece of paper"
I have a friend like this. Long relationship, 2 young kids. Best friends "will never split "
I hope the house is in joint names......

Original poster
LavenderfortheBees · 09/10/2023 13:42

pikkumyy77 · 09/10/2023 13:22

So ask boyfriends to maintain their own home?

Common law in many places protects the more vulnerable person in the event of a breakdown in a long term relationship. Traditionally the more vulnerable party has been the woman both because if she had a strong social position she could have commanded marriage and because children and increasing age were seen as handicaps to her in the event the relationship dissolved. Men were understood to have more choices financially and in terms of future partnerships than the woman.

The tide had turned, perhaps, for some of you. But you are basically saying that as the person with more security and wealth you don’t choose to create security for your partner. There will always be ways of making sure wealthy people keep control over their assets. Perhaps you will just have to maintain to residences. Or throw your boyfriends out for 20 days each month.

It would be much more expensive to do that, wasteful for housing stock and why should we?

He chose to live with me under those terms and if we wanted to change things, we would marry or get a CP. I might marry him at retirement age if it would safeguard his access to my pension and we are still together but I'll make the right choice on the circumstances at the time. The next house I move to will likely be with him as tenants in common with our shares ringfenced. He isn't being exploited here and has been able to save for the first time after moving in with me and having a much better income/expense ratio than before.

I don't want to be forced into legal ties that I am actively choosing not to enter currently.

OP posts:
Megifer · 09/10/2023 13:44

I wouldn't be happy with this at all because I assume it will work both ways and i don't want DP to automatically get half my shit if we split up or I die. Its the very reason I won't marry him ffs 😤

ChamaChamaChamaChameleon · 09/10/2023 13:46

pikkumyy77 · 09/10/2023 13:22

So ask boyfriends to maintain their own home?

Common law in many places protects the more vulnerable person in the event of a breakdown in a long term relationship. Traditionally the more vulnerable party has been the woman both because if she had a strong social position she could have commanded marriage and because children and increasing age were seen as handicaps to her in the event the relationship dissolved. Men were understood to have more choices financially and in terms of future partnerships than the woman.

The tide had turned, perhaps, for some of you. But you are basically saying that as the person with more security and wealth you don’t choose to create security for your partner. There will always be ways of making sure wealthy people keep control over their assets. Perhaps you will just have to maintain to residences. Or throw your boyfriends out for 20 days each month.

What's this rubbish about 'social position'? It's 2023 we're not in Victorian England.
If a woman wants marriage then all she has to do is leave and not reproduce with a man who won't marry her. Simple.
The fact that many want kids, or have blind spots low bar etc is the problem, not marriage and this can be solved by education.

You're also assuming that the only people against this are 'wealthy people' the kind that can hire a team of expensive accountants to control their assets. How dramatic. Many PP are not wealthy they have a house. pensions etc something any ordinary person can aspire to. They earned it, they should be able to keep it!

IMO 'common law' if it involves things like joint children living together for at least 5 years would be acceptable but to give people rights solely on the basis of moving in is ridiculous.

The other thing being... people can also live together without being in a relationship. Like flatmates! How would you tell the difference?

tasslesated · 09/10/2023 13:48

Megifer · 09/10/2023 13:44

I wouldn't be happy with this at all because I assume it will work both ways and i don't want DP to automatically get half my shit if we split up or I die. Its the very reason I won't marry him ffs 😤

You need to a will then