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 ;)

I thought it was terrible ~Scotland introduced those laws and I hope the English don't. There's no reason we should.

The law should let people decide. If they don't want to marry but still move in they don't need financial protection. they are adults. They can take their own risks or put properties into joint names if they choose. We must fight hard against this nanny state and presumption woman is ignorant chattel with no earning power and unable to understand the differences between marriage an dotherwise. It is a law that is in effect although it might not appear so demeaning and damaging of women.

I think that an unintended (or perhaps intended?) consequence of this going ahead will be that the number of cohabiting relationships will fall dramatically.
For all the rhetoric of people saying that they do not 'need a piece of paper to love one another' (true, but missing the point that marriage is essentially a legal matter) and not being religious -a really dubious reason to not marry, who IS religious these days in the UK- most people do not marry because they simply do not wish to be legally tied to their cohabitee (maybe they will tie themselves legally as the relationship progresses, just not yet).

That is the truth of it; and if people are going to be married by default when all they really intend is a 'see how it goes' relationship, they probably won't even cohabit in first place.
If they are serious about the relationship, they'll probably get married anyway or at the very least put in place things like joint property arrangements so everything is clear in event of break-up/death.

So I think all the lawyers out there thinking this may be a moneyspinner may be disappointed when people just say no to cohabitation.
Cynic that I am, I think lawyers love complexity and cohabitation law would line their pockets very well. Less people are marrying so they are now looking toward cohabitees as a potential income source.

I am reviving this to see if anyone (Rubyreins?) can further comment on cases of cohabitting couples splitting in Scotland post the 2006 act.

I am a woman and have lived with my partner for about 15 years and have deliberately chosen never to marry because he has never really worked and I have always had concerns about his financial irresponsibility.THere have always been problems in the relationship

I only learned about the act recently and am still reeling in shock that he might have a claim on my assets if we split up

You're reading it in the daily hate mail what do you expect the slant o. It to be?!? Its a paper promoting traditional family values. There will almost certainly be some safeguarding in place so that it's not just people who live together for a year!
My dps mum and dad lived together for 20 years, raised 2 children she took time off work to raise them etc etc. At the end of it she left with the 50,000 she came in with and no more. He is worth over £5mil at a guess I'd say. There was no legal protection for her at all. If she'd lived alone that time and paid a mortgage or whatever she would have had considerably more.
I think it's a fantastic idea with the right safe guarding in place.

not following the daily mail reference, I don't often read papers.

It won't happen. It's the kind of tinkering in private life and property that'll happen over most Tories' dead bodies.

It HAS happened to an extent in Scotland, which is where I am .
2006 act gives cohabitting partners the right to seek a lump sum if the relationship breaks down.

I have been to see a lawyer about this ( highly recommended family law specialist,) but she was unable to tell me any more than I found out by googling the details of the 2006 act.

I wondered if anyone here had experience of the new act in practice

Maybe if you post your query in the MN Local sections (Scotish areas) you may, just may get an informed answer.

Mr Spoc, the case you described is highly, highly unusual. The protection for an unmarried partner is minimal. I can only assume that the judge in that case was persuaded that there was some evidence of an agreement of some sort between the parties. Otherwise it would be appealable.

The issue about a potential claim on the estate is correct but relates to a claim for support after the death of a partner. If a child is involved there is a maintenance entitlement and if there has been a contribution towards the mortgage there would be a claim on the house. Otherwise there is no entitlement to anything.

I would not like to see people gaining a false sense of security by reading about rights to a share of their partners assets or the status of a common law partner because it simply isn't the case. Someone might get very, very lucky and get an odd judgement, but there is no way someone should rely upon that.

Finally, this proposal will never happen. Not in a million years.

I should also add that Scotland has some fundamental differences in the underlying ethos of the law that are likely to make this sort of proposal slightly easier to envisage.

thanks Caramel I'll do that. My question seems to have got lost!