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?

My niece isn’t married to her partner - I think his parents had a messy divorce. They have two children. They’re an intelligent, mid thirties, couple.

Some countries have it.
It actually sounds logical that there could be some legislation around it.
Our legal system is partly based on case law not all written statutes.
There are specific claims that can be brought - e.g. under TOLATA so that can muddy the water of understanding.
It even has an extremely well know phrase attached to it - exactly as you’ve said, “common law marriage”.

So no, I’m not surprised that some people - even intelligent ones - think it is a “thing”.

I do think that people who make financial decisions before checking into exactly what kind of a “thing” it is are foolish. But to think there might be something to check into isn’t foolish.

There is no such thing as registering a will.

But yes you can leave a copy with a solicitor and make people aware of that.

I agree about people not understanding that it doesn’t provide the same protections as being married, particularly when it comes to inheritance tax etc.

I do think though that financial organisations such as insurance or benefits does cloud the understanding of the situation. A lot of couples are basically one party with less rights than a lodger staying in a property as a guest, but that removes entitlement to benefits for the individual.

It's not quite this.

In medieval England, legally, all an English couple needed to do in order to be married was to declare that they were. 'I, John, take you, Jane, to be my wedded wife' and vice versa.

It was convenient if there were witnesses, as otherwise it was very tricky to prove (you get court cases where it's clear both parties had had sex and one or other of them had been lying about marriage). But it wasn't strictly legally necessary.

Legal quibbles come up when people argue over the form of words (eg. 'I never said we were married; I said I'd love to marry her if I could but I can't!' or whatever.

But there was no obligation to involve the Church or the State in contracting a marriage. This is, in effect, common law marriage.

I don't think it's stupid that people don't know what legal rights they have; I do think it's something (along with relationship health and financial awareness) that ought to be taught more explicitly. If you have never been told any of these things, and everyone around you has been stating them as obvious facts all your life, it isn't surprising if you assume it's all true.

IME there are quite a lot of legal situations people don't know about - simply because they don't encounter them.

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

That doesn't make any sense. Everyone should consider their own circumstances and how the legalities of marriage would affect them. For some people, not being married is foolish.

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

You can't have had it all sorted, as there are legal things that only married couples get, like the inheritance tax differences.

There is a will registration service available in England.

It is called "The National Will Register" > The National Will Register | The Law Society

Unlike in many European countries, registering a will in England is voluntary rather than mandatory.

Good luck to your godmother, clearly a well advised woman.

Sadly, in my experience, "it's a massive assumption that people don’t understand or are a bit thick because they haven’t got married" accurately sums up most common law spouses' view.

Then I hope they have all their legal paperwork, house ownership, wills, pension nominations, life assurance cover etc etc in place.

There are millions of couples living together like this in the UK right now. But the important point is that they have to realise the difference in legal status between that and being married, and take steps to protect themselves if needed. Your niece may well be very intelligent, and have made a fully informed choice. But not everyone is, and every single week on Mumsnet there are women who've ended up screwed over because they thought they had more rights than they do.

They’ll all be happy that Labour is promising to introduce it.

Legal obligations to people should be actively opted in to. In England they rightly are.

That's not what the OP is saying though, is it... 🙄

So where does that leave the 'jumping over the broom' contingent? 😳

There are some rights for cohabitants, at least in Scotland. In respect of claims against the estate following death, the cohabitant can in theory get up to what the spouse would have received. In practice, there's been two cases and in both, the cohabitant got something, though less than they would have received had they been married.

Surely a will would stipulate whom the inheritance goes to, married or unmarried.

It probably leaves them at a distinct legal, financial and social disadvantage.

A "common-law" couple are technically 2 single people living together. Nothing more.

No safety net.

@LordEmsworth OP is, I think, saying people may often be ill informed and believe they have rights due to common law marriage.
my post was saying that there are people who use common law marriage as a way to describe their commitment and set - up, not making any further assumptions about legal implications.

Here in Canada you have common law rights after one year of cohabitation.

A official civil partnership gives the same rights nowadays, doesn’t it?

What rights does that confer? Equal shares of finances/property if you split? TBH I’d have thought that would be pushing it, after just a year!

It’s astounding that they would perpetuate this myth! Unhelpful to any cohabitee who thinks s/he has some kind of spouse-like legal status.

They don't. The categories are Married, Single, Civil partnered, Cohabiting, Divorced/dissolved, Separated, Widowed/ surviving civil partner.

I've just checked.

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER it one year for tax purposes, married rights after two

What is a common law spouse entitled to in BC?Since 2013, BC’s Family Law Act treats common law couples the same as married couples for the purposes of property and debt division if they split up.
Couples who have been living together for two years share the same legal rights as married couples in BC, including a 50/50 split of debts and assets—excluding pre-relationship property, inheritances and gifts.
A partner in a common law relationship can also be entitled to spousal support.
Learn how to create a legal will in BC →

Thanks for clearing that up!

I work in an industry that deals with death and the amount of people who state they are married and then can't produce a marriage certificate is astounding.

When I inform them being legally wed and just cohabiting mean totally different things under our legislation they are shocked. They normally reply "but we lived together for 30+ years", though means nothing.