To think that marriage doesn't necessarily give more financial security?

[newmumwithquestions]

I've been with my OH for over 10 years. We're not married. I see no reason why we'd ever split up, but if it did happen I'm wondering if financially I could be worse off as a result, and if there is anything I should do to avoid this. I know one side (normally the woman) is often worse off in an ummarried break up compared to a married one but don't understand if this would be the same in our case.

We have earnt more than each other at varying times in our relationship. I have left work for a couple of years to be a SAHM and then intend to go back to work, probably part time. In making this decision we made him the primary earner.

• We own our house (part mortgaged), are both named on the mortgage and joint own it.
• We have mirror wills. If one died everything goes to the other.
• Although not married, we registered our children's births together to give him shared parental responsibility.
• I am the beneficiary of his life insurance.
• He pays into a work pension, I currently am not paying into a pension, this worries me a bit, although I don't understand if being married would give me any security here?
• As primary earner his salary pays most household expenses. His personal spending is higher than mine but I'm ok with that (I'm just better at being frugal).

Am I missing anything here?

Your remaining risks are

a) if you split up, he can change his will and who is beneficiary of life insurance at the stroke of a pen, and you have no recourse.

b) you have no claim on him for maintenance or pension for yourself, because contribution to a non-marital family is nor relevant.

So you need to get your pension to roughly what it would have been had you not stopped for a while, get your own insurance policy on his life, and make your future plans assuming that you cannot count on getting anything in the will other than the share of the house.

Also interested in this thread.

We have no compelling desire to be married.

About to buy a house though so wondered if it might reduce admin.

I am main earner. DP is SAHD for 2 small DCs. He also does a small amount of freelance work (so uses his own tax free allowance). We have mirror wills and are beneficiaries of each other's life insurance. At the moment savings/assets well under IHT threshold. I do pay into a workplace pension that I hadn't considered though. It's not HUGE but is obviously going to increase whilst I'm working. Perhaps should look into.

We will both be on mortgage and deeds of property we intend to purchase. Probably 2/3rds of deposit is mine (from inheritance) 1/3 is DPs (from his previous property). Household expenses (inc rent and mortgage) are covered by my income, DP has some freelance income which we use for savings for holidays and unexpected/expensive purchases. It's all family money though.

I want DP to be entitled to half property if we split (as he would if we were married). I can't imagine us doing so, or it getting nasty but I suppose you never know. But fundamentally, as a SAHD, I believe he's entitled to half the family assets. And I don't think I'd change my opinion on that even if he shagged my best mate. (Not that she'd have him, haha).

I'm pretty sure being married makes bugger all difference in our case. But appreciate that not everyone SAH/unmarried parent is lucky enough to be in that position.

No, you're not as protected as you would be financially if you were married.

If he has loads of savings in an account in his name, he keeps them all if you split.

Your pension is also a worry.

The house, you would probably get 50/50 although he could argue he's put more in and so you would get less. I'd you were married, and had been a SAHM and worked PT as you have, you'd probably get more than 50/50.

I'm sure there are more, too. That's just off the top of my head.

tango nice attitude to have towards your DP, looking to protect him rather than just yourself.

I do think your lack of entitlement to his pension contributions while you've been together is a BIG factor. I'm not sure of the law regarding non-earning people contributing to a pension, but it would be worth investigating that - you should really have an amount equal to his contributions paid into your pension from the family pot, even if that means reducing his contributions. That may mean the tax benefits wouldn't be as good, but at least you'd have your own pension.

Not that I regret not marrying the tosser, but after 10 years of contributing more than my fair share financially, I walked away with sweet FA. Also, he could get married today, drop down dead tomorrow and his wife inherit everything, over either me or our son.

I was stupid not to get the legal and financial side sorted.

If he cheats on you and moves out you will be forced to sell the house if you can't afford it alone. If you were married he'd have to pay the mortgage until your child leaves school

As someone else has said, this is not true. Not by a long shot. There is a real need to understand the financial implications of not getting married - particularly in the long term. Your lack of pension is a major issue and will become a bigger and bigger issue as you get older - suppose you were to split up in your late 50s and you had always worked on the assumption that his pension was enough for the pair of you to be able to live on in your old age? With a divorce, you would have a right to something rather than nothing at all. Not getting married is therefore of far greater value financially in the event of a relationship breakdown to the higher earner.

Of course, it's not very romantic, is it, if you marry for financial reasons? It feels 'wrong' and 'money grabbing' and somewhat self-serving which is not what we are lead to believe marriage should be about. However, there is legal protection in marriage that does not exist in relationships which have no legal status and it is particularly important this is acknowledged and understood by a lower earner or the partner who gives up more to have children or doesn't have a pension etc.

I will be accused of 'doom and gloom' and scaremongering by the happily married brigade who believe it could never happen to them, but the only way to secure your own long-term future is to ensure that you keep working, develop your career, limit money in joint-names, make your own investments, have your own savings and your own pension which is equivalent to that of your partner/husband.

Women who have had their partners drop them after 10/20/30 years together all say they never thought it could happen to them. I will never be arrogant or stupid enough to think it could never happen to me.

I'm happily married and financially very secure. It's madness to put your security at risk for anything, even love.

If you are married and then divorce either party can change their wills and life insurance without the other having any recourse either so I'm not sure that's a reason. You can change either during a marriage too though a mouse would be in a better position to contest it. Any savings in an unmarried individuals name will obviously remain theirs after a split whereas if you're married they would be part of the marital assets. We won't have any savings in just one of our names.

Tbh for us it's just going to be easier to get married. Just less bloody hassle. I went to dp and basically said that I'd like us to be married and he said fine. Had he said no it would have raised a serious question as to why not. It would have been just the same at any part of our relation, had he wanted to I would have said fine too.

A mouse??? A spouse I mean

Of course, it's not very romantic, is it, if you marry for financial reasons? It feels 'wrong' and 'money grabbing' and somewhat self-serving which is not what we are lead to believe marriage should be about.

Agreed, but as the rest of your post makes plain, there is absolutely nothing romantic about finding yourself single and badly off in middle age because your better off partner has buggered off and you have no legal claim on his/her assets.

Relationships are not all about hearts and flowers. Marriage is about a lot more than a wedding. It's got nothing to do with religion unless you choose to link the two. Historical sexism is not relevant to marriage in 2016.

"If you are married and then divorce either party can change their wills and life insurance without the other having any recourse either so I'm not sure that's a reason."

That's not exactly right; well, it is but only once the divorce and financial settlement are sorted. During which a spouse can have things like non-financial contribution recognised in the split of assets and such things as insurance payouts and pensions projections will all be assessed as part of that process. If death occurs before the financial settlement is concluded, a spouse can seek to have the new will varied, make a claim on payouts and seek payment of widow's component of pension.

If not married, they can just be changed at any point and the other cohabitee can be left with absolutely nothing.

YANBU to think marriage doesn't necessarily give more financial security. Broadly, it protects the poorer partner, so if eg you have assets already and your partner has none, you're risking having to give them a slice should you divorce after a long marriage.

However, in your case, most of the things you have in place to protect you aside from the house are voluntary. Your DP could change his will, life insurance and pension tomorrow and you'd have no way of knowing. He could also change them if you were married, but the difference is that if eg he were financially providing for the household, dropped dead tomorrow and had changed his will to disinherit you, you'd be able to challenge it quite easily. It would be considerably more difficult if you were unmarried. Basically, he could remove most of those protections from you tomorrow, and you wouldn't even have to know about it. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't get married, but those are the facts. In your case, marriage likely would give you more financial security, although it's not a silver bullet by any means. It doesn't protect everyone, but it can prevent some shit from hitting some fans, sometimes.

Hmmm food for thought. I do think the pension is a problem. I have a small, pretty inadequate pension pot and as PP have pointed out I won't be entitled to any of his if we remain unmarried. At the moment this is balanced as I have other savings in my name only (he doesn't) but as I'm not earning all savings and pension contributions on my side have stopped - in fact I'm dipping into savings during this period of not working as we're spending a little more than his income.

Of course, it's not very romantic, is it, if you marry for financial reasons? It feels 'wrong' and 'money grabbing' and somewhat self-serving which is not what we are lead to believe marriage should be about.

No it's not very romantic and marriage shouldn't just be for financial gain (isn't that gold digging!). I guess I feel that having kids together is the ultimate committment so marriage wouldn't add anything there (we're obviously not religious!). So rightly or wrongly marriage would, for me, be for financial reasons.

One could just as easily call a person refusing to marry the SAHP of their children to give them more financial security a gold digger!

People get married for all sorts of reasons. Some for love, some for the party, some for the IHT exemption. I don't think it's right to say one approach is more valid than the other. The reality is that it's a contract with legal and financial ramifications but it's also sometimes a religious ceremony/sacrament, a cultural event, a ritual. Marriage has existed for such a long time and in so many societies, it's bound to have a lot of different meanings.