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've no interest in marrying at all. My assets are just one reason.

The UK armed forces are starting to recognise unmarried relationships in relation to housing. You have to be able to prove the relationship has been formalised for 365 days.. examples given are joint bank accounts or a child for which you are jointly responsible. However it's only if there is surplus houses available and you can be given 28days notice at any time so it is a gamble.

Let's be honest here. What you want is for the legal default to be such that you have your desired outcome for your particular situation to be ideal, without doing anything.

On the other hand, this default doesn't suit everyone, in all circumstances. Your desired legal outcome is totally achievable via opt-in action (either a will or other legal contract).

Changing the default has way too many side effects for too many people in circumstances different to yours.

Just go see a lawyer and draw up a contract.

Very well said Dissimilitude.

It's always the way though. Some people think that the vast majority of people should have their legal freedoms restricted and legal contracts forced upon them purely to cater for those who CBA to draw up the legal agreement they want.

Just like some people insist that DP would never do anything to financially disadvantage them and all those on MN who point out their financial vulnerability are simply jealous and don't understand... But show up months later when the situation hasnt resolved, has got worse and it turns out DP was all too happy to walk away leaving them with huge financial sacrifices and minimal child maintenance

@Rainbowhairdontcare Your parents were to blame if they gave you money for a house and you had to split the equity with your husband when you split up.

They could have used legal means to keep it in your name only and given you the gift on the basis it was yours alone.

There are many families doing this thing now when house prices are so high- ie contributing money to help their children buy a home. They could have set it up so your otherhalf didnt get 50%.

Even without a legal contract of some kind, your own lawyers should have stepped in and made a better job of your divorce.

And as others have said there is no such thing as common law marriage- its a myth that people perpetuated when cohabiting was referred to as 'living in sin' - some people felt it gave them some moral high ground to say it was a common law marriage.

@Rainbowhairdontcare You need a better divorce lawyer! If you feel as you do, and have been stung, you have had bad advice before getting married and when you got divorced.

Are you actually in the UK?

Get yourself a good family lawyer from a top LOndon company and get something legal set up. The law can do this.

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

No, just dont get married.

Married = assets shared

Not married = assets not automatically shared.

You just seem better because you feel you should have been able to get married and NOT had to share your assets.

Just sounds like the men thay claim they got screwed in a divorce, when they actually mean their ex wife her a fair share.

If your parents bought you and your husband a house but didnt want him to be entitled to sharing it on divorce, they should have not put it in your name.

Pre nups are nor always taken into account because a lot changes in a long marriage.

Sounds like you got married and wanted hom to walk away with nothing.

My parents not being British citizens make those things substantially more complicated (we did our best with the prenup).

Everything went to hell because I was a higher earner at that point and I have property abroad which meant that it was easier for ME to keep our daughter's standard if living than for him. my exH didn't claim any of my property abroad either. So he thought it was "fair" for him to get 50% of all assets That was the reasoning of the judge anyways and that's why he voided the prenup.

As others have said; common law marriage no longer exists in Scotland for any relationship that started post 1998. It can, in certain circumstances; be recognised by the Scottish courts for relationships that were pre the 1998 change. I'm qualified in Scots law so know this to be factually accurate.

I understand this won't protect women who are leaving controling marriages but will also protectpeople.likeme, who isn't against marriage per se, but can't understand why everything has to be 50/50.

So fuck vulnerable women and children? As long as you didnt have to share your assets despite choosing to get married. Just as long as you benefit?

@Rainbowhairdontcare With respect, I think you're picking a fault with marriage here when actually whoever drew up your pre-nup is at fault. They are always at the discretion in English law, which means that you need to follow it carefully to get it through. Anyone who is being paid to protect assets through a pre-nup should be sufficiently able to protect those assets!

It's really unfortunate that they failed you, and then your ex husband decided he did want those assets. But it's not the fault of marriage - sometimes they separate, and the law has to try and find a way of fairly splitting assets if that happens - sometimes it fails, and it's not fair at all.

I got massively screwed over in the past. Most countries recognise separation of assets, I truly don't understand why England won't.

So he thought it was "fair" for him to get 50% of all assets That was the reasoning of the judge anyways and that's why he voided the prenup.

I dont understand why you dont think this is fair. You chose to get married in a country where pre nups are mor legally binding.

The responsibility was yours to do your research.

Also for those that question common law marriage it's not a defacto thing. It has to be proven by years of cohabitation and testimony that life was of a married couple.

All of which causes infinitely more hassle and uncertainty than making wills and other legal arrangements to protect assets.

Ah, so you expect English law to sort out something that was conducted outside England in the first place?

Honestly, I think you are being a bit dim. The law in the UK can cover a lot of this stuff- there are trusts, covenants, wills etc , but if your parents didn't work within English law, when they bought your home, well...

also pre nups are not secure- they are not legally binding.

Again, poor legal advice.

You give the impression you are very wealthy - or were through family money too- being a high earner and having a home overseas too.

why did you get married in the first place if you knew there was a risk of losing half your assets? No one made you.

Thank you for your empathy Anchor. My parents just wanted to protect me and their granddaughter. It was all unfortunate and today I've wasted a big chunk of my time still untangling myself from my exH. (Reason why I'm so bitter today).

Our case was never going to be straightforward but we thought (meaning me and my family) that we were protecting my interests the best way we could.

Obviously we all ended up a bit paranoid and as much as everybody loves my partner, we don't trust prenups nor the legal system. So I'm left with no choice but not marrying and trying to do what's best for our family in reverse (wills, NOK).

Good lord, marriage can be a legal secular ceremony, it needn't be religious and you can even have a civil partnership now, what more do you want!? If you want legal protections sign a contract, that's what marriage is.

I see marriage as a largely romantic concept. It's mostly about the dress and the public vows isn't it?

The legal stuff...that needs separating from the idea of marriage.

Not everyone wants to marry but everyone should be committed and sharing with their life-partner.

Why did I get married ? Well I fell pregnant when we were dating (I was an international student studying my master's). I couldn't make myself have an abortion nor raise my child without her father. The only way to get a visa that would let me stay was marriage.

He at the time was a PhD student. Without my parents help we would never had survived, no recourse to public funds.

It turns out that he was very abusive (took me years to see it) and even though he said he'd honour our arrangement he never did.

With hindsight I should have left with my baby, but would never have met my partner who I love with all my heart. To me it's always a fight between not getting screwed over again and doing what's right for my current relationship.

Bird if it's just a contract then why does there need to be a ceremony?

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

That really misses the point. In every thread involving a cocklodger there is a woman, 50% of that Relationship, making a lousy choice for herself and her children. She shouldn't be the victim, unable to make an alternative choice, trapped in her circumstances. She should be empowered and able to recognise the cocklodger and kick the arsehole to the curb, through improved education, and support. It is not acceptable for the default to be that the woman gets the bad deal.

There is a way to protect your inheritance and that's through a system of trusts, which would only pay out to you and any children you have. Your parents chose not to do that. You're bitter because your marriage didn't work and he took half, how many women on here are encouraged to do the same? Enforcing so called common law marriage would force couples who had deliberately chosen not to marry into a legal contract they opted out of. Common law marriage wouldn't have protected your inheritance, because of it existed in the UK it would mirror the rights and obligations of marriage, which you don't like.

But many older couples marry for the 2nd or 3rd times in later life. They use their wills to ensure that their children inherit their assets and not their spouse. I am sure you could do something like this BUT the question is why do you want to re-marry (if you do?) when you feel the 'protection' is one sided?

If you want to protect your assets, don't marry- what's the point? It entails a risk. That's what marriage is.

I don't know why marriage is so important to you anyway if you have been stung once. Just co habit. That way you protect your assets in a will and so does your partner.

YABU to think the law should be changed just to better suit your (relatively unusual) personal circumstances.

Those who want the legal protections of marriage can choose to do so - it shouldn't be foisted on people.

I agree with absolutely every other person on this thread. It would be ludicrous to make common law marriage a ‘thing’.

I think pp’s have hit the nail on the head with all the reasons against, not least being that it forces people in to something that they have chosen not to do.

There’s nothing stopping anyone getting married if they wish. It doesn’t have to be religious, nor expensive so if people chose to co-habit that’s their choice.

When 2 people have chosen to get married they are legally bound once they’ve signed the register etc. How would you distinguish when a non married couple became “official”?

If someone wants the rights of a married couple, just get married 🤗