Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that people will be too wary to move in together?

136 replies

tuggy · 03/02/2011 07:44

Just read this article and it saying that there is the possibility (not set in stone blah blah) that they will be giving co-habiting couples the same rights on break up, as married couples. Now I'm sure that in plenty of cases, there are people who have lived together for 20 years, without getting married, broken up, and been royally screwed when they had no more rights that the neighbour, to a fair settlement. Doubtless all those people will leap on to tell me their story and proclaim IABU.

However what I'm thinking is that in GENERAL (cue flaming) you date someone, you like them, after a year you think yeah I could live with them, give it a shot living together, it works out, you maybe get married voilà. But if it doesn't work out, you can walk away because phew you didn't actually tie the know.

If this new law comes in then suddenly when you move in together you are making the decision at THAT stage that this person may be eligible for half your worldly goods. When I moved in with my DP (hopefully one day DH) I was in love, I was hopeful for the future, but I don't think I'd have wanted to necessarily commit to him definitely having rights over my flat/business/savings. If I'd felt that certain I'd have married him, not moved in with him.

In my mind marriage, and just deciding to give it a shot and move in are two very very different steps and should be treated as such.

(dons hard hat from people who have co-habited for years and are in the anti-marriage brigade)

Discuss ;)

OP posts:
MackerelOfFact · 03/02/2011 10:21

Awful idea, especially in the current climate where couples are moving in together quicker because they just can't afford to live alone. Plus where do you draw the line between flatmates and a 'couple'?

Living with someone is in no way comparable to marrying them. If you want the protection of marriage, get married. If you don't, you shouldn't be deterred from moving in with someone because you'll be considered married by proxy.

Sounds to me like a Tory idealogical people-shouldn't-be-living-together-before-marriage-anyway 1950s throwback scheme to me.#

I'm not married BTW.

marantha · 03/02/2011 10:24

MrSpoc I could be wrong here; but it is my strong belief that 100% of men will marry their partner if that is what she wants, he is sure it is for life, and he is able to do so.
So if a man refuses, it's probably because he is hung up (maybe for valid reasons) about getting legally-tied to another person.

Why is forcing him into default marriage merely by living with someone going to help? Is it not likely that he will avoid living with someone if it means being tied?

marantha · 03/02/2011 10:24

Eiher hung-up or just not sure about getting tied yet.

marantha · 03/02/2011 10:25

Or, not to be sexist here, a woman could feel the same?

MrSpoc · 03/02/2011 10:27

If I were single and met someone inorder to protect myself i would hide everything. I would not invite her to my house and I would move into her house. If it worked out and we got married then I would share my wealth, so to speak.

Now this sounds extream but what would you expect. If everyone did this including both partners then how will anyone have trust or ever build solid relationships?

FabbyChic · 03/02/2011 10:41

You cannot claim an inheritance or even half of it.

My bf's brother was left money by his mother, he split with his wife of 20 years, she had no claim to the inheritance as it was left to him solely.

TheSecondComing · 03/02/2011 10:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FabbyChic · 03/02/2011 10:48

As he pays the mortgage if you split and he can prove he paid the mortgage even as it stands now he could claim a percentage of your house value.

FabbyChic · 03/02/2011 10:49

I think you all fail to realise that people already have rights as it were, there are already things in place you are a common law wife/husband after two years as it is.

mischiefmummy · 03/02/2011 10:52

For what it's worth I'm not married because (DP doesn't see the need) despite us being together over 12 years and having four DCs and a joint mortgage etc. I have always been a SAHM and I would actually welcome some legislation that would make me feel more secure.

MrSpoc I don't think your assumption of 100% is quite accurate but I get your meaning.
DP may have issues about marriage but not about commitment. My bugbear is that I was in a relationship before for 7 years and then literally he just walked away and I still don't think I have recovered from the shock and therefore still feel a bit shakey about not being married. However I don't see that ultimatums are really a solution either. Any legislations would have to be incredibly carefully worded. I have heard that in Australia co-habiting adults have the same rights as married ones so would be interested to see if anyone has experience of this.

woollyideas · 03/02/2011 10:53

I love the Daily Mail readers' comments underneath the article. Take 'Jon' for example:

Another way for men to get stuffed by women. The only way to guard one's wealth is to go and visit prostitutes rather than have a relationship. More fun too.

I bet he's got the ladies forming a queue at his door...

PoledrathePissedOffFairy · 03/02/2011 10:54

Fabby, no that's not right - 'common law spouse' has no legal recognition under English law. However, if your partner has contributed to the mortgage of your house and can prove it (even if the deeds are in your name), they are entitled to a share of that house.

EricNorthmansMistress · 03/02/2011 10:58

FabbyChic
That's bollocks and a common myth. There is no such thing as common law spouse. Can't believe anyone still believes there is!

We need civil partnerships for all if desired. A legal contract that is different to marriage which denotes lifelong commitment. We also need marriage for all if desired.

BuzzLightBeer · 03/02/2011 11:04

Do people still give out that guff about common law spouses? Thought everyone knew that was boo-hockey.

MrSpoc · 03/02/2011 11:07

mischiefmummy sorry it was another poster who said 100%.

FabbyChic is right in the sense that people are already protected to an extent. If you have lived with a partner, paid bills, contributed as a couple (having kids just supports your case) then you can claim part of the estate.

But thetre is no legal term as common law spouse but it is used as way of explanation.

If you want the marriage protection - get married. If your partner does not want to then ask why. You can then got to a soliciter and get a contract drawn up if you need.

So why the need for this new legislation?

Diamondback · 03/02/2011 11:16

I think it was a good idea when they proposed that people living together for more than 2 years should get rights - it might make people think more before they move in together! I know too many people who move in together and have no idea of their rights (or lack of). Maybe if there's a real risk of taking on responsibilities, people might make the effort to inform themselves before taking a serious step like moving in with someone.

Things I've had to explain to co-habiting friends, because they weren't aware:

  • There's no such thing as common-law marriage;
  • If you split and the house is in one name only, you're entitled to nothing, even if you've paid half the bills (inc. mortgage) for however many years;
  • You two are not automatically each other's next of kin so, if there's a horrible accident, it could be your brother who you've not spoken to for years who gets to decide on your treatment, not your partner;
  • If one of you dies, your partners family could kick you out of your home and take it;
  • If you're the man, and your partner leaves you or dies, you don't have automatic parental rights.

I don't think people should or shouldn't get married, but it's incredible to me that a lot of people will make big, life-changing decisions about mortgages, kids, stay-at-home parenting without any awareness of what might happen if one of them leaves/dies/is in a coma.

For that reason, and not any 'moral' one, it IS too easy to move in together! If this law makes people stop and think a bit, it's a good thing.

marantha · 03/02/2011 11:29

I agree the common-law-spouse scenario is a complete myth.
Cohabiting does not confer any rights and responsibilities at all. Obviously, people are free to make their own legal arrangements as regards mortgages etc.
So a couple who jointly bought a property 50/50 and paid mortgage 50/50 would be entitled to half each.
I think this happens a lot and people then misinterpret this as cohabitation having rights attached to it- it does not.
Just living someone and having sex with them, has no legal rights attached to it.
Long may this continue.

MrSpoc · 03/02/2011 11:30

Diamondback - Ithink you have been ill informing your friends a little.

There's no such thing as common-law marriage; - Correct but is a term used as an explination
If you split and the house is in one name only, you're entitled to nothing, even if you've paid half the bills (inc. mortgage) for however many years Incorrect if you show you are an item, paying bills, children then you are entitled to a percentage of the estate
You two are not automatically each other's next of kin so, if there's a horrible accident, it could be your brother who you've not spoken to for years who gets to decide on your treatment, not your partner - Next of kin can be chosen by anyone but does not have a legal standing
If one of you dies, your partners family could kick you out of your home and take it - not right - same as above
If you're the man, and your partner leaves you or dies, you don't have automatic parental rights I thought this has changed now? if it is your bio child then you get the kid

marantha · 03/02/2011 11:30

It's not the sanctity of marriage that is under attack here; it is the sanctity of cohabitation and being able to live someone free of any ties (other than they explicitly make themselves e.g. buying a house).

marantha · 03/02/2011 11:34

I'm not sure you are right here, MrSpoc, I have heard so many conflicting opinions on this issue, so I don't know what is what.
Some views are that unless there explicit payments towards upkeep of house/mortgage and not just bills for food etc, the person does not have share in property.
Others say that paying bills do count (if a person can prove it). I really do not know.

PoledrathePissedOffFairy · 03/02/2011 11:36

MrSpoc, the law has changed re unmarried fathers, but only applies to children born after 2003 (in England). So, if your child was born after that date and you jointly registered the child with the mother, then you have parental responsibility. It does not apply to childnre born before that date, so you would still need to have made a parental responsibility order with the mother or through a court.

marantha · 03/02/2011 11:36

Anyways, looking after children will count for nothing; if a woman has given up work and is unable to show she has contributed a penny towards house, bills whatever and become sahp, she won't get anything.
This is harsh; but I say that people make this choice and they should be aware of their rights (or lack of) when it comes to cohabitation.

MrSpoc · 03/02/2011 11:39

it is all dependant on the situation.

For example - flat mates (male female) Male owns and rents a room to female - she pays bills, food etc.

She is not entitled to any of the estate

But boyfriend, girlfriend living together, boyfriend works, girlfriend stays home, cooking, cleaning looking after dog, cat or children etc - this is a contract agreed by both parties so she will be entitled to recieve her share.

Granteed you have to apply and go to court and a good defence solicitor my srew you, but you do have rights.

MrSpoc · 03/02/2011 11:42

Here is a little test and anyone can play

How many boyfriends/Girlfriends had you lived with before settling down?

Do you think it is right to be entitled to half of everything they own.

LornMowa · 03/02/2011 11:44

You're right Marantha. I can never understand the claim that giving rights to co-habitees undermines traditional marriage. All it does is change the relationship between people to who live together.

That being said, I always love to see people proudly wearing wedding rings. Those ties that bind people together make society more secure overall I think.