Concerns about living together/not marrying...

[IcyViper]

Partner and I both planning to live together in the future. No plans for marriage. I was never keen on marriage - and remain so. (I am childfree and don't see children in my future, so for me, I always said marriage would only be 'necessary' if I were to have children).

I'm obviously aware of the legal protections marriage offers etc... he is not keen on marriage having been married/divorced.

I'm becoming increasingly agitated about living together as I feel like I would have no protection. In fact, it is not just a feeling, but a fact.

My concern is also that he has an ex-wife and children. I've never been married and (as above) have no children, so I am totally unencumbered. The imbalance has often been a problem in this relationship - and I've had to work through a lot, in truth. I do not trust (for very valid reasons) that I would be protected in the event something would happen to him - even though the place would be 'ours'. Not because of 'him' per se, but external factors.

He has a tendency to be (overly and sometimes wrongly) optimistic - whereas I am more cautious - and just want to protect myself here. I do not want to be made to feel 'highly strung' now or down the line by him, so I'm hoping to see what my options are now. If it's a 'raw deal' for me, I am happy to not live together.

Would you live with someone you weren't married to? AIBU to feel the way I do? Is there any way I can protect myself without marriage?

Apologies if this comes across as naive. Please be kind.

You’re talking out of your backside where English law applies. “Common law” wife or husband is meaningless from a legal point of view; they have no rights whatsoever.

Any couple shacked up ‘can’ be referred to as common law but it’s irrelevant. You might as well say “living in sin.” Living over t’brush, if you prefer.

They don’t inherit, aren’t next of kin, could be roommates as far as the law is concerned. The important bit (as explained upthread ad infinitum) is whether they are Joint Tenants or Tenants In Common.

Why? It’s not their house. They have only 50% ownership. That was a deliberate choice on the part of MIL - she chose not to have her half pass to her partner.

Honestly OP I wouldn't buy with him without marriage. My friend did and her DP dropped dead in front of her quite young. His previously lovely children came round and shocked her by removing their dad's belongings. Unfortunately most of them were hers. They even took all her cash saying that it had come from him. She wasn't able to arrange his funeral as not next of kin, but his DC expected her to pay for it! They took his car off the drive which she had paid for too. She took equity release to give them his half share of the equity because she wanted them out of her life. It was distressing after over twenty years together.

of course she left it to her children just not at the time she died. They’ll get it of course but she also loved her partner and didn’t want to see him out on his ear . If one half of a married couple dies the other half isn’t expected to leave their home!

Anyone ‘shacked up’ living in sin 😂This isn’t 1950’s, seriously who do you think you are.
This is an anonymous forum, your opinion is meaningless to me, particularly when you think it’s ok to tell someone they’re ‘talking out of their arse’.

But "common law wives/husbands" don't exist! In England and Wales anyway.

It just isn't a "thing".

Google it if you don't believe it.

You’ve made your point a couple of times now to me and l still disagree.It’s not really necessary for you to be condescending, I’ll give my opinion, if that’s ok with you.
OP, can make a informed decision on her own.

I continue to make the same point because it is factual. It is actually not "OK" to dispute facts with your uninformed opinion. You can have an opinion on your favourite colours, furniture styles and friendships. OP's inheritance or otherwise will remain unaffected by your opinion, but will be affected the actual legal facts.

I think I’m someone wasting her time with an idiot talking to someone who doesn’t realise that Commonlaw Wife has about as much relevance to today’s society as Living in sin, Shacked up or Living over the brush.

Which was why I used them - they are meaningless phrases people used in the past but have no legal basis in England in the 21st century.

Your “opinion” is irrelevant. You’re telling the OP something blatantly untrue that won’t help her understand her legal position in a shared purchase.

And I was fairly polite when describing the aperture from which you spoke.

@OrangeTeabags My comment was in response to being ‘shacked up, or living in sin. Which isn’t ‘isn’t a thing’ And no l don’t need to Google.

But you do need to look it up because you said you don't agree with the poster?

They were using those outdated phrases to illustrate that you are doing the same when referring to "Common Law" spouses.

Glad you got that off your chest.Still disagree.
If you think my opinion is so irrelevant, why are you quoting me, surely that’s just a waste of your time.You can quote me all you like.

Quite! Frustrating, isn’t it? Apologies for repeating your point, I cross posted.

As if ‘opinion’ carries any weight when it’s flatly untrue - the judiciary being well known for relying on “a quick google “ 🙄

OP, would a civil partnership work for you and your partner?

Yes, it is a bit tiresome, when someone is unable to let it go, feels the need to bring another poster in, to back you up.And laughable that you’re apologising to them.
As l’ve already said, op will make her own informed decision.

Thank you for that generous permission that no one needs.

I’m replying in case the poor OP, @IcyViper, mistakes your deluded and untrue gibberish uninformed opinion for something bearing a slight resemblance to the truth. Telling her that something is true based on your poor understanding of a quick Google is not exactly helping her.

You can revel in all your opinions to your little heart’s content, and I’m sure you will. I hear there are whole media outlets who build empires on opinions over facts. Who are we to stop you joining them?

In the meantime, some of us are trying to answer the OP with things that are based on reality and the law as it stands, not what someone hope it might , based on what might have applied in 1850s common law.

Oh dear, someone, is getting very frustrated.
I didn’t bother to read all your comment, as usual, so long, but l got the gist.
It’s an anonymous forum, everyone can give an opinion, whether you think they’re deluded, gibberish etc.Your comments are getting more and more nasty, it’s doesn’t make them any less, if you cross them out, that’s why l’m not interested in your personal opinions.

I’m sure I’ll come to live with that crushing disappointment.

The point, as ever, was that your opinion and actual facts were in opposition. It’s unfair to the OP to let them stand unchallenged.
Not all topics are ‘just a matter of opinion.”

I guess I’m swayed by the recent death of a neighbour. He was bloody awful to his stepdaughters for decades - a petty, selfish man who expected them to step up and be at his beck and call when their mother, his wife, died.

30 years until they got their inheritance from their mum’s half of the house. It would have made a significant difference to the affordability of university for their children (now adults) and house repairs for them had they been able to access that money in under 30 years.

We did the decent thing as neighbours, mucked in etc, but he was a deeply resentful and entitled man. I think their mother would have been horrified.

Ok.It’s more to do with, someone, who thinks their opinions’ are the only ones that actually matter.Your comments have just been nasty.It shouldn’t have to be this way for you to get your opinion across.I don’t believe you’re thinking of op at all, if you were, you wouldn’t have continued to get needlessly personal, to push your opinions, because if your opinions were completely valid, why would you need to

Totally incorrect.

Not in law there isn’t.

Yes. It’s called a life interest trust.

It’s really stupid and naive to believe what you are saying though. Don’t go giving incorrect advice unless you are sure of the facts and can back it up.

I work in this area of law and as far as English law goes, you are very wrong.

FFS you have made a commitment of a fucking house .. your home at God knows what cost .. just spend another £235 and go down the registry office on Wednesday afternoon.. drag a couple of witnesses off the street (or better yet MN who are fab at this stuff - and her married. Job done . Don't need to tell a would if you don't want to but no more worry .. far cheaper than all the bits you need from legal agreements that still don't hold the rights that you have as a wife or him as a husband.. then make WILLS !