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

[tuggy]

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 ;)

MrSpoc I have co-habited ( hate that phrase!) with my OH for 15 years and have 5 children together. Before that I had never lived with anybody else and had only had 2 proper boyfriends.
Not everybody moves in and out constantly with different partners.

MrSpoc. I think if a partner dies, the woman could make a claim as a dependent on his estate, but I do disagree that if they split up and she cannot prove she has made financial contribution (s) to property, bills etc she can get a share of his property.

I could be wrong, and am happy to be corrected.

My mum lived with a boyfriend for about seven years, it didn't work out, he paid nothing in bills, should he have really been entitled to part of her house? And should she have had to sell it, later in life, to give a few measly thousand to some guy who came, paid nothing, and left?

Not everyone is 'setting up home for life' when they move in together, if you want to do that and have legal protection, then get married (although I do agree that civil partnerships should be available to all combinations of couples to avoid the 'we don't want the marriage institution' issue).

Yes LornMowa, good point.

I think these rights should be given when you have children, not so much living together. If you just live together you most likely are still responsible for just yourself, both parties probably work, if they did before, and no-one has given up their earning power to stay home and look after the children.

I would give rights to couples living together with children...but just couples living together doesn't sit right with me.

onceamai I do agree with you, I'm also a traditionalist, idealist, etc and my heart told me after a few weeks with DP we would be together forever. However how many people have been in the same boat and it DIDN'T work out? In an ideal world eveything you say is correct. The sad fact is it's NOT ideal which is WHY they are talking of these 'rights' I think plenty of people live together and it doesn't work out and they should be able to walk away (if no children) and start afresh

DiscoDaisy - not sure about your age so please do not take this the wrong way.

People from the older generation were like you and your situation but younger people 20's, 30's and some 40's, the majority of people would of lived with 2 - 3 partners before they settled down.

This is only my observation of people who I know so may not be universal.

Marantha - I have recently been involved with a friend who this has happended too. it went to court and it was judged that they were equal as it was agreed between them what thier roles were.

It is not black and white and will depend on the situation. oh and having a very good lawyer.

MrSpoc, I should imagine that your friend's ex could demonstrate to the judge that it was agreed that she should have share in property.
Perhaps there was a written agreement, I don't know, just a guess.

I imagine it's all about what can be demonstrated as regards property with cohabitees. With marriage, there's no need to prove anything, as the couple made an explicit statement to be a couple.

MrSpoc I'm mid 30's. We moved in together when I was 20 and he was 25.

I doubt there will be a universal principle applied to all couples. Cases will be looked at in context, as marriages are. So if you moved in with a partner for 3 months you will not end up with a similar settlement to a SAHM who has lived with her partner for 20 years and brought up 3 children.

I think if a person can demonstrate to a judge that an agreement was made to share a property equally, they can get a share.
But if a person stands up and is unable to demonstrate this, and just says: 'well no agreement was made between us for me to have a share but as I did all housework/childcare for 20 years, I should get his house even though I've contributed nothing towards it', I don't think they'd get a share because of it.

I know that this is what happened to a friend of mine- her housework/childrearing counted for nothing.

I've mentioned this before on here, but in Belgium you can "register" your relationship at the town hall.

"Unmarried couples who nevertheless wish to have their partnership recognised can do so via a Cohabitation Contract. A notary will draw up such a contract and it can then be entered into the population register in the place of residence. The couple share responsibility for joint expenses incurred in the course of their daily lives and benefit jointly from any assets acquired during their partnership. However, they remain separate individuals for tax and social security purposes.

The Cohabitation Contract can be terminated at any time by agreement between the partners or by one partner alone. Legal involvement is usually only necessary if there is a dispute over property.

The contract is also terminated if either party marries or dies. "

Yanbu

Marantha - My freind moved his girlfirned into his house, she got pregnant and they both chose for her to stay home and look after the child. She cooked and cleaned. there was no contract. was together about 5 years.

The judge said that this proved that she is just as equal to the estate as he is. so there was a charge placed on the house for when they sell they both get a percentage. (not sure what it is).

It all depends on each indervidual situation and have a damm good lawyer.

DiscoDaisy then you are rare compaired to the people round where I live. ok 20 is not rear but 25 and never lived with some else before is.

As i said before, this is just an observation of where i live.

Have any of you read what this about? Nobody is proposing any system whereby anyone you happen to live with can have half your stuff! There is no system being proposed at all. One judge said its a good idea if cohabiting couples can have some protection in the law. Which it is. How do you think any system could possibly come about that someone you lived with for a bit can just be handed your cash?

Do me a favour. Aren't there any actual issues you can get this worked up about?

oncemai, I know lots of people who move in together to see if they can make it work. Mostly they're in their early twenties and can't afford not to! DH and I moved in together after dating for a few months, because neither of us could afford to live alone. We rented a room in a shared house. I couldn't have done that with a friend (twin rooms not being exactly common in shared houses!).

I did know at the time that DH and I were serious, but I certainly wouldn't judge any of my mates who did the same thing with a more casual partner, then split up. It's a good way to save money and some of us are not well off.

I've only lived with my current partner, but we moved in together fairly soon after starting a relationship (3 months). But that decision was less because I was 100 % sure he was the one for me and more because I was having to move closer to where he already lived and it seemed silly for us both to pay rent for separate places. We made sure we got a 2 bed flat just in case it all went wrong and really it was a decision made on finances.

I can see how you might have lived with a couple of partners before you settle down without rashly moving in with every boyfriend you've had.

Incidently, until we had children there was nothing connecting us that would have differentiated us between partners and flatmates. So I wonder how that issue would be tackled.

Marantha, I'm not talking about what the law is at the moment. I am talking about the proposed changes to the law.

Changes in the law will not treat all partners in the same way, it will depend upon the context.

Clearly this is important when children are involved.

MillyR, so everybody who lives together should now be at the mercy of a subjective assessment about how things should be divided if they split up? B***s to that.

I understand that if a person can demonstrate to a judge a common intention to share a property equally, they may get a percentage of it. I think this is what happens already, actually.

But cohabiting couples are not entitled to maintenance from former partner (like a married person would)or other benefits like a pension. Nor should they be.

If they want that they can get married.
And if they don't wish that, get down a solicitors and get things drawn up between them- like every other responsible cohabitee does.
Why shouldn't people have right to live together on a no-strings attached basis just because a few people wish to leave things like property settlment to chance and who has got the more convincing lawyer?

I agree with marantha, all couples have the option of getting married (or getting a civil partnership), it shouldn't be forced upon people just because they happen to share a home and a bed. Many couples have made an intentional choice not to marry and want to have an intimate relationship without being legally tied to each other - and why shouldn't they? Others might prefer to have legal arrangements drawn up instead of marriage, customised to suit them.

I wonder if it'll be possible to opt-out of this arrangement? A bit like a pre-nup only without the marriage afterwards!

This sounds harsh; but if sharing a man's bed, doing a bit of dusting and being in a relationship in his home is the only thing that gives a woman a right to a man's assets (if a couple have financially contributed equally, it is different. It's also different if the woman can demonstrate an intention to share property) then what these proposals are effectively implying is that sex and being in a relationship =financial reward.
Er, that sounds like these 'cohabitee rights' are effectively saying women are prostitutes.

There are no actual proposed changes to the law.

Marantha, the prostitution argument you put forward is the same as the one put forward about married women. I don't think it is a reasonable argument because having sex with someone does not really form part of how judgements are made about distribution of assets.

The reason these changes began to be discussed was because many people working in law became concerned about the impact cohabitation was having on children. Now, while adults have a choice about getting married, the children have no choice. There is clearly an issue when men (particularly fathers) tend to be earning more and are more likely to have paid more towards assets, but women are more likely to be the primary carer, even if working, and so are both less likely to have paid most into assets are more likely to end up being the primary carer after separation. There are serious consequences for the wellbeing of those children if an unmarried split up.

Society generally operates on the principle that the needs of a child should be prioritised over the needs of an adult. Changes to the law would aid that process. I think there is a further issue of assets of parents who have never lived with their child, and if they should be partially redistributed to the household where the child is resident.

As for subjective decisions, I'm not sure that taking into account context means that a decision is then subjective. That seems like an enormous leap - I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion. There are various laws and test cases, but if you are married and then divorce, your individual context is taken into account. The same is true in many areas of the law. A 16 year old who shoplifts from Boots would not receive the same treatment in law as a 25 year old who stole from a vulnerable elderly person. They are both guilty of theft, but the judgement is dependent on context.

I think people are trying to turn issue into some kind of absolute principle, but such principles only apply to a limited extent in the law or in life. We have to make these decisions based on context. You seem to hold a very high value on a person's intent, when it is really our actions that have more consequences for the lives of others and ourselves. What you are saying would be more convincing if you explained why someone expressing their intent (marriage, written document about asset sharing) in having a child with someone and living with them for 20 years is of more moral consequence than their actions over 20 years.