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

Common in law wife? And wills

220 replies

harvester77 · 27/12/2017 10:34

Having a conversation over Xmas with family members and they asked if my other half has done a will. We have 3 kids and his house in his name on mortgage but he said if anything happened to him in to sell the house as it's mostly paid off and get the money. But if he hasn't done a will is it possible his other family could go for the the money? What would happen to us and the kids? We don't believe in marriage a s never crossed my mind but I'm unsure of what really would happen of someone happens to him? God forbid. Thank you

OP posts:
princesssparkle1 · 28/12/2017 07:08

Anyway we will sort it out.

@harvester77

How's the sorting going? How are you feeling about it all?

scrabbler3 · 28/12/2017 07:52

"Not believing in marriage" is all very well for right-on atheist middle-class types who'll be financially ok in the event of a bereavement or if the boyfriend finds someone else and leaves.

However, in the OP's case I suspect it's very different, sadly. He won't marry her. OP, try to get him to sort out life insurance at least. And start squirrelling away some money as an exit fund in the event that he ends things with you.

Personwithhorse · 28/12/2017 08:19

There is an extensive, and factual, article about all this on The Citizens Advice website. A must read for those considering having children they are not married to

Collaborate · 28/12/2017 08:23

I'm a family solicitor.

The only ways in which you can sort it out is:-

  1. By the property being put in to joint names (in case you separate)
  2. By him making a will so that you don't have to sell up to realise his half share on his death (would work both ways) - though this won't prevent him changing his will if he chooses - he doesn't have to tell you.
or.....
  1. You get a civil marriage. If your objection is, as you say, related to the religious side of things, you'll be pleased to know that by law a civil marriage cannot have any mention of religion.
MaisyPops · 28/12/2017 08:40

IME relationships between people who don't 'believe in marriage' tend to involve one person who just doesn't want to get married. Strangely enough, usually the one that owns the house and car outright.
This ^^
And usually it is the man with most of the large assets, the woman leaving work and staying at home to bring thr children up. Man gets to keep all his assets and have free childcare and the house ran for him. Woman gives up her own income, says it's because she doesn't believe in marriage/believes that her being a SAHP 'makes the most sense' and then can't leave because she has no earning ability or assets and she is totally dependent on her partner who could decide he's had enougg and kick her out with zero responsibilities beyond child maintenance.

Don't get people saying common law spouse should exist. Want legal protection? Enter the legal contract which offers that protection aka marriage.
There is a reason same sex couples fought hard to gain these rights. It's not because some of them might 'believe in having a nice party'.

thegreenheartofmanyroundabouts · 28/12/2017 09:46

I'm a priest and I'm one of those people the OP is happy to offend. When I conduct a wedding I make it really clear to the couple that this the ceremony is also a legal contract so I can't amend the words of the service and when we get to the bit about signing the registers this is a legal document and we all have to pay attention and sign in the right places.

Civil weddings are secular with absolutely no reference to God. What they give you is legal protection for yourself and your family.

Get married, get your OH to take out life insurance, make a will and leave a note of the passwords to the computer if important documents are stored on them. I've dealt with the fall out from all of these at funeral visits. Unexpected death happens and the mess that is left behind that could have been sorted with a bit of research and realism is shocking.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 28/12/2017 10:03

And usually it is the man with most of the large assets, the woman leaving work and staying at home to bring thr children up. Man gets to keep all his assets and have free childcare and the house ran for him

Which is the stupid bit. Marriage or no marriage she's pretty much screwed, as the relationships board shows.

Hopeful103 · 28/12/2017 10:13

And usually it is the man with most of the large assets, the woman leaving work and staying at home to bring thr children up. Man gets to keep all his assets and have free childcare and the house ran for him

But then its her choice to leave work and accept that situation.

MushyPeasAndPie · 28/12/2017 10:14

I am an atheist so didn't get married in a church because whilst I love the buildings I didn't want to be a hypocrite. It does always surprise me that so many people don't understand the legal implications of marriage, wills, inheritance etc when we have the internet with so many official sites giving clear information. Lots of people don't want the legal contract of marriage which is fair enough but you can't get (almost) the same legal protection without signing lots of legal documents (house, will etc) so if you haven't signed anything then you haven't got any protection.

MaisyPops · 28/12/2017 10:17

But then itsherchoice to leave work and accept that situation.
When people are still perpetuating the idea that common law wife/husband exists as a legal entity and that in the event if a split the house has to go 50/50 because of the children and that the SAHP can claim back off their ex etc then a woman might have chosen to stay at home, but there is sure as hell a lot of misinformation peddalled with the sole intent of ensuring men get all the perks and no responsibility whilst the woman accepts the situation because 'DP says that we're common law so don't need a marriage. If we are already protected why marry?'

splendide · 28/12/2017 10:30

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the person earning all the money gets "all the perks and no responsibility". Speaking as a married person with a non-working DH.

IsaSchmisa · 28/12/2017 10:54

You could have a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (provision for family and dependents) Act 1975. Not ideal because you'd lose a chunk of money in legal fees.

And that's the salient point here.

There does exist some legal provision to oblige an unmarried partner to make financial provisions after separation. I know some lawyers, both solicitors and barristers, who work in this area. But it's far from straightforward and it's difficult to enforce. The poster who said it took 2 years for her friend didn't surprise me at all.

Because of this, because it's going to be thousands in legal costs (the only times I ever saw it in practice it was well into the 5 figures) TOLATA claims are a well off person's game. It's not relevant to the majority of unmarried partners because there simply isn't enough money sloshing around within the partnership to pay the costs: it's possible to get an order to get your costs paid, but that still means the money has to come from somewhere.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 28/12/2017 11:19

And usually it is the man with most of the large assets, the woman leaving work and staying at home to bring thr children up. Man gets to keep all his assets and have free childcare and the house ran for him

Which is the stupid bit. Marriage or no marriage she's pretty much screwed, as the relationships board shows.

Not invariably. A SAHP of either sex has more chance of getting hold of at least some of the assets if married. Every single time this issue gets discussed here a high-earning woman turns up and points out that she would be much better off financially if she remained unmarried, as her partner would then not be entitled to a share of her assets if they split up. It's a sign of commitment and trust if she goes ahead and marries anyway.

If the wealthy women can make this assessment, why would we assume the wealthy men aren't doing the same?

MaisyPops · 28/12/2017 14:08

splendide
What i meant is that the person who works and has all the assets in their name has all the security and can walk away keeping everything if and when they like. There's no risk to them. They don't lose anything. If the non working partner is being a SAHP then the non workinh partner has a lot to lose in a non married situation. They arrn't entitled to anything, little earning power yet it is them being at home with the kids that facilitates the worker earning and acquiring more assets.
The working person gets all the perks of the relationship, someone at home running the house, someone doing the childcare etc safe in the knowledge they can leave at any time and have lost nothing at all.
By law there is no responsibility on them to do more than make child maintenance payments if appropriate. They keep the house, they keep the car, they keep the savings etc when they'd have significantly less if the SAHP was working anf they had to pay childcare.

NotSupposedtobeHere · 28/12/2017 14:24

But if he hasn't done a will is it possible his other family could go for the the money?

In short, yes. It would go to his next of kin, as defined by the law.

You have no rights - there's no such thing as 'common law' spouse in English law.

kittensinmydinner1 · 01/01/2018 13:03

My best friend cohabited with her 'd'p for 26 yrs and had 4 kids with him. He also 'didn't believe in marriage ' . Turns out he didn't believe in marriage with her. He did however find his faith in the institution when his 26 yr old Latvian mistress 'insisted' .
BestF had supported his career by being a SAHM and facilitating his life so that ALL domestic concerns were her job. Leaving him free to devote his time to work. (And business trips to Dubai where he met aforementioned mistress) .
He started as an office clerk aged 21 and by 35 was a senior vice-president at an investment bank. By 46 he was a partner in his own venture capital business.
When he married the Latvian she became the joint legal owner of best friends Home. She became the next of kin and heir to ALL of best friends former partners considerable assets.
Kids had all but grown up. He was self employed. She got bugger all child maintenance as only one child left under 18.
The only protection she was afforded through law was to stay in the former family home until the youngest child was 18. (Under schedule 1 of the children's act.) This meant she had 3 yrs to find a new home, whilst tying to find work having been at home for 20 yrs.

This awful situation has convinced me that the 'legal status of marriage ' should be an ESSENTIAL PART OF SECONDARY EDUCATION.

I think it should be one of those classes governed by some form of statute. Whereby the information with regard to marriage/cohabitation and especially having children before/without marriage is imparted to ALL teenagers. A class that has to be signed off as attended before leaving school. It is half an hour that could hugely benefit your life.

It DOESN'T mean that everyone should be obliged to marry. Of course this should always be a free choice. But the full facts should be known to every adolescent so they can make a fully informed decision in the full knowledge of their rights.

Btw, it is not allowed to have any religious overtone to a civil wedding. You can't even have 'church or religious music' . In our expensive s.e England area, it costs £175 for all the costs of a civil marriage in a room that holds 10 people should you wish more than the obligatory two witnesses.

RavingRoo · 01/01/2018 13:32

As it stands everything will go to your kids and be held in trust until they are 18. Also, if the estate is large enough they will have to pay inheritance tax on it. If he died before the kids turned 18 you would need to sue them to spend any money for day to day living.

If, however, you got married, the inheritance would be yours and there would be no inheritance tax to pay.

Jaxhog · 01/01/2018 16:56

Totally agree with @kittensinmydinner1

I just don't understand why this isn't compulsory learning at school. Then no-one would be under the illusion that there is such a thing as common law marriage. But then it seems incomprehensible to me too, why anyone would have children without considering how they would jointly care for them for their first 18 years at least. Getting married seems a pretty good first step to me. This 'I don't believe in marriage' sounds (to me) like 'I can't be bothered to think about my and my children's future'.

TittyGolightly · 01/01/2018 17:19

I just don't understand why this isn't compulsory learning at school.

FFS.

Situp · 01/01/2018 17:20

I am sure someone else will know more details but there is also the matter of pensions if spouse dies. My DF died 3 years ago and DM will get 50% of his pensions paid to her until she dies. I don't think this happens if you are not married. even so, for one of the private pensions, all his kids had to sign a disclaimer to say they werent going to claim the money before they would pay out because it had a fixed 10 year payment which was more than the 50%.

My DB is with his partner of 20 years with no kids, no marriage and intestate. It is not just the OP who is in this position.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page