To think that it's shameful that England (I think Scotland does) won't recognise common law marriage?

[Rainbowhairdontcare]

I've never understood why that's the case. Some States in the US do, the same as Canada and even some Latin American countries. Given the statistics of cohabitation it would only make sense?

I think its important that a relationship has something that declares intent, whether that be marriage or a legal document which carries the weight of marriage. And people then decide whether or not they want to take that step.

I don't think that simply living together should come with any rights. If one person wants the protections and rights that come with marriage/legal commitment and the other doesn't, then that says something important about the state of the relationship and people are free to make their decisions based on that.

Typo “in the event of his death” should be “in the event of your death”

I would like my partner to have the protection that marriage entails.

If only there were some way of achieving that. The government should run some kind of office, where you can register that kind of relationship.

To think that it's shameful....

The government have suspended parliament to avoid scrutiny. The current PM has lied about why. The last PM named a convicted wife beater for a knighthood. We have the lowest social mobility in the developed world. Our NHS and Education system are dying. I could go on all day.

The word you are looking for is irritating, save shameful for something meaningful.

The law of inheritance (which you seem to be mainly concerned about) does recognise the rights of cohabitees without the need for a will. See the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

It's not exactly a cast iron guarantee, but if you can't be arsed to get married, and you can't be arsed to make wills then you can't really be all that bothered!

No, women with assets will get fucked over. As will their kids. by cocklodgers and the like.

If you want to share your finances and assets with your partner, get married or have everything in both names and will etc.

If people don't want to do thay, they should have that right AND love with a partner.

Thanks FiddlesticksAkimbo I'll look into it! Like I've mentioned we do have a will, I don't have one for property abroad but that has to be sorted where the properties are located. Something I will sort out at some point.

See here

www.willclaim.com/left-partners-will-can-cohabitee/

No. It is important to have a clear line in the sand to demonstrate to the state that you are both committed to one another.

New Zealand have this ghastly common law marriage thing and it is a disaster. If you have been dating someone for 2 years they start getting rights over your assets as if they were a spouse. It gives people no opportunity to try living together and seeing whether the relationship works. It is particularly dangerous if one partner is a home owner and the other partner moves in with them. After a relatively short relationship the partner has a right to equity in the house. With widows and widowers this can leave them in fear of starting a new relationship, incase the new partner disinherits their own children.

I think it is particularly unfair on young people, who often don't know and understand this. They have a boyfriend or girlfriend, they have just started on the career ladder. Perhaps one of them is more ambitious than the other and has worked hard to get into a better paid profession. They are saving up for a deposit on their first house. Then wham! Their relationship breaks down (as they often do at that age). Rather than just going their separate ways, one of them gets landed with a legal letter telling them to pay the other one a lump sum.

Remember though that wills can be changed without telling the other person at any time and you have a right to leave your money to anyone you choose in English law (albeit sometimes after death those depending on you might choose to go to court to bring a claim under legislation for some of it - but that is a difficult and expensive and onl possible right).

Get married then

In some US states common law marriage can be after as little as 6 months - and you do realise that it means that you have to divorce if you want to properly separate. In fact there are cases of students living in the other bit of their city, just across the state line with their partner at University and only realising they were "married" when they wanted to get married properly.

Civil partnerships were supposed be being broadened to hetreosexual couples. which would give rights without the "marriage" word.

But if you have any form of marriage then to get out of it you have a form of divorce.

Common law marriage is recognised in Australia and rightly so. Someone way up thread mentioned it being wrong that common law marriage is "drifted into"

But it's not. The fact is that it makes people think very carefully about moving in together because there are more rights attached to it.

It's called Defacto here.

It's right and proper that it is recognised. Many women fall victim to liars who say they will marry them, then they have children and bingo...the man refuses...or delays.

The woman, having lost time in pursuing her career due to child rearing is left with no rights.

No, women with assets will get fucked over. As will their kids. by cocklodgers and the like.

If you want to share your finances and assets with your partner, get married or have everything in both names and will etc.

If people don't want to do thay, they should have that right AND love with a partner.

Do bear in mind that cock lodgers (and cunt lodgers?) can make a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act I mentioned above. If you have provided them with support (even just accomodation) then, whatever your will says, they may be entitled to "reasonable financial provision" after you're dead.

Genevieve surely that's an issue with separation of assets more than anything else? I think those rights should be acquired by obligation.

I don't think either system is perfect. If anything the closet I can think of is a marriage with full separation of assets that will be recogyky regardless of what a judge thinks. I understand this won't protect women who are leaving controling marriages but will also protect people.like me, who isn't against marriage per se, but can't understand why everything has to be 50/50.

I would like my partner to have the protection that marriage entails.

If only there were some way of achieving that. The government should run some kind of office, where you can register that kind of relationship.

LMFAO

If you have been dating someone for 2 years they start getting rights over your assets as if they were a spouse
No you have to reside with them. Not just "date" them.

No, women with assets will get fucked over. As will their kids. by cocklodgers and the like.

Well I'm sure they're FAR less common than the women who get fucked over by partners who keep delaying marriage.

Genevieva

New Zealand law defines a de facto relationship as being between two persons (whatever their gender), who are both aged over 18 years old, who are not married to or in a civil union with each other and who live together as a couple.

Not date.

Most people feel that "cohabitation" = "common law marriage". It is not.

There is a myth that if you cohabit for a length of time then you acquire sone legal rights - it is a myth.

If a husband/wife dies intestate then the other party does have rights under intestacy laws. The same is not the case for cohabitation and the starting point is that the other party has no rights. There have been court judgments so the feeling may be changing. It is essential to make legal provisions including wills. Even then if a partner sets up a will benefiting the other partner it can still be revoked or changed.

Common-law marriage does not exist in Scotland. There was a type of irregular marriage called 'marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute' which could apply to couples who have lived together and were thought to be married. ... Only irregular marriages established before 4 May 2006 will be recognised.

It usually takes a couple of years to be recognised. I for example don't want any of the "rights" of marriage. However if my relationship were to last til our senior years I would like my partner to have the protection that marriage entails

So get married then
You don't want any of the rights of marriage but you want your partner to have the rights protection of marriage in senior years?
Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever.
You either want to get married and have protection or you don't.
YABU as you'd effectively be forcing so called marriage on people who want to live together but DON'T want the marriage legalities.

The Case law in Scotland refers to two cases one around 1906 where they lived together 9mths but presented themselves as married Mr & Mrs X. The court ruled they were married. A second case in the '60s they lived together for 2 years but made no pretence about marriage. The court ruled they were co-habitees.

If you want to have married rights get married. Simple!

But it will protect that people who want marriage rights and the other side doesn't want to get married for whatever reason. Fairly common in some sectors of society.

As FiddlesticksAkimbo pointed out cohabitating couples can still inherit (which is my main concern for him). I wouldn't want to give him my assets if we divorced (which depending on the common law marriage regulations some will ask for splitting assets while others won't).

I’m not hugely invested either way but I think maybe there’s a case for a presumption of legal cohabitation status after two years but with a simple opt out document to be signed by both parties. It would make it very easy for older couples who want to keep their assets separate to do so, but blokes who were prevaricating and procrastinating about marriage would find it much less easy to explain why they wanted their SAHM partner to opt out of their rights to the home.

I don't want to be dragged into a contract with a man just because some women can't pull their socks up and ask their partners to marry them or give them an ultimatum and leave if they don't get what they want. I'm single at the moment by choice but if I decide to enter a relationship again I have actively chosen not enter into marriage because I want to be able to walk away with my assets.

ClaraThePigeon wouldn't marriage with separation of assets solve your problems? I know it doesn't exist, but I believe it should.