To not be able to believe that intelligent people think that common law marriage still exists?

[TimoteiChaletpants]

A group of educated/intelligent people advising an unmarried person that there was a certain amount of rights under common law that they would be entitled to if the had been together for an amount of time.
my understanding is only marriage provides a partner with any legal or financial rights

AIBU?

I'd be surprised by a group of intelligent people all thinking it, but I have seen it posted on Mumsnet quite a few times.

I also think some people get married without fully understanding the legal and financial aspects of what they're doing.

Being intelligent and having critical thinking skills are 2 different things.

Common law marriage does exist in other countries so perhaps people have heard something about it but don’t realise it doesn’t apply in the UK.

I agree with you, and I have no idea why some people still think this, unless perhaps they are from other countries where it does apply.

I don't think there has ever been common law marriage in the UK. If there was then why would anyone bother getting married? The protections offered by common law marriage would presumably be almost the same as actual legal marriage or civil partnership in the minds of those who believe it exists. They get a nasty shock when they find out that it is total bollocks - an old wives tale if ever there was one.

A friend of mine said that because her parents have lived apart for over thirty years, and one of them lives with someone else, that their marriage would have automatically dissolved by now. They never even bothered with a legal seperation.

Sometimes people believe what they want to believe, and there is no shaking that view.

I back away slowly, smile nicely, and avoid that particular topic in future.

Never fails to amaze me, the number of assumptions made by unmarried couples. You have to spell it out, particularly when the woman lives with the man who owns the flat or the house. She is assuming all sorts of rights are accruing and they're definitely completely and absolutely totally not.

I spent my entire working life drumming it into my clients that there was no such thing as a common law marriage - but the illusion still persisits.

As I understand it a "common law marriage" dates from colonial times when a couple wanted to get married but couldn't because there was nobody legally empowered to marry them. Just shacking up together is no sort of legal relationship.

Oh and BTW if you're in Scotland, the Court of Session some years back declared marriges "of habit and repute" illegal as well.

A true tale:
Parents lived next door to a couple, he was a retired bank manager, so presumably financially savvy, I don't know about his partner. Not married but had lived together for many years. They were in their 60s or 70s. The man died suddenly, no will to be found although his DP thought there was one. House was searched by his children so we will never know the truth and the will had not been registered. DP thought she had common law rights.
Actually DP had no rights at all and to make matters worse, she was disabled and used a wheelchair (house was a bungalow) so DP couldn't move out easily. In the end, his children bought her out, X thousand to leave although technically they didn't have to.
Moral: If you love someone, make a will and register it. Leave a copy with your solicitor.

England and Scotland differed on this. Until a few years ago Scotland recognised what it called marriages "of habit and repute" where a couple lived together.

However, the Scots Courts never said how long the relationship had to have lasted to be a marriage of habit and repute. The only case I know of said 18 years was NOT long enough.

Anyhow, the Court of Session outlawed them sometime in the 1990s.

I have known a number of cases like this. She was lucky to have been bought out. Many I was involved with were just straightforward evictions.

Well I am glad it doesn't, then people have options. How often do we see threads on here where everyone says he's a cocklodger? With no common law, people can just separate and go their own way. With common law, people could lose parts of property, savings and pensions just because they let someone sponge off the too long. That is not just a female supporting male thing, goes all ways.

I don’t think it’s entirely surprising. I was plugging details into Compare the Market (or Money Supermarket, I can’t remember which) recently for home insurance quotes. One of the options available for marital status was “Common law.” I’ve also seen it as an option in the past on a range of forms provided by the local authority and my local NHS Trust. If regulated financial products and statutory bodies are perpetuating the myth, if only in terminology, that there’s such a thing as a common law partnership, suggesting that only unintelligent people might believe it to be true is unfair.

No one intelligent does think this. Though yes, it’s surprising that people who are basically literate and have internet access think it.

Absolutely this.

People are wedded to certain things.

I have had to review some things I myself have thought and it isn't always easy, so I sort of understand why, but you have to keep trying to listen to experts or you just get further and further behind/out of line.

Some countries do have common law marriages, or at least situations where unmarried couples have some of the rights of married ones.

Canada:

wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.php/Unmarried_Spouses

Australia:
(Called a de facto relationship)

www.wattsmccray.com.au/difference-de-facto-relationship-marriage-eyes-law/

I had a look whether common law marriage ever actually existed in England and Wales. Wikipedia says (with what appear to be reliable references) "It is sometimes mistakenly claimed that before the Marriage Act 1753 "cohabiting couples would enjoy the protection of a "common-law marriage". In fact, neither the name nor the concept of "common-law marriage" was known at this time."

So it never existed but the belief that it did and does is a long-standing one, seemingly passed down from one generation to another within communities.

Being intelligent and having critical thinking skills are 2 different things.

And intelligence and knowledge are different things. You don't really need to be stupid to assume something exists based on the fact that you've heard of it (especially if it used to exist). Giving people on a forum legal advice when you aren't actually sure of your facts is stupid though. And irresponsible.

I thought that part of the history relates to the monopoly that the Church of England had on performing marriage ceremonies (except for Jews and Quakers) which some people couldn't afford, so they had other arrangements recognised by the community. People use the phrase 'jumping over a broom' which was part of the ceremony. But it's never been legally recognised or part of actual common law.

I'm sure when I was younger, newspapers often used the phrase 'common law husband/wife' to refer to cohabiting, which was still frowned upon by many. Perhaps that added to the confusion.

I heard many people of my parents generation describe themselves as common law spouses. What they meant was that they considered themselves married in terms of commitment, and didn’t need a piece of paper to prove it.

my godmother was one of these, they were both on the deeds of the house and had other legal protection.

its a massive assumption that people don’t understand or are a bit thick because they haven’t got married.

to me personally I would consider someone is more capable of independent thinking if they are NOT married.

just to add, I am married, but not for any legal reason at all - I had that all sorted as a long term partner.

there can be a really sneery tone on her sometimes towards people who aren’t married, it can come across as bitter imo.

I remember seeing it on a form I used to claim job seekers allowance! Was very annoyed I was turned down for the icons part due to having a partner rather than as I had high savings (ie i wasn't expecting to get it due to that)

Hopefully changed terminology now.

The government doesn't help as you are treated as if married for benefit purposes.

Many people who meet partners in later life would want their inheritance to go to their children and not the partner which is one reason they don’t marry.

It sounds like the partner had many years rent-free and got a pay-off too, so she benefitted financially from the relationship, looking on the bright-side.

I remember seeing it on a form I used to claim job seekers allowance! Was very annoyed I was turned down for the icons part due to having a partner rather than as I had high savings (ie i wasn't expecting to get it due to that)

Government benefits forms and guides have never used the term "common law marriage". They use the terms "living as married" and "living as married or cohabiting".

@Twoshoesnewshoes I don’t think that’s entirely fair.

How many posts are there on here, where a woman has contributed to the finances, paid into a mortgage, brought up the children of the partnership and then finds herself abandoned without any recourse to the assets of that partnership. Or women who feel trapped because their partner is the only person named on the mortgage and they have no assets, despite making significant contribution over the years.

my understanding is only marriage provides a partner with any legal or financial rights

To be fair, you can gain some legal rights by other means, e.g. formal agreements and trusts. But not just by living together.