Consultation on unmarried couples sharing assets when they break up

[CruCru]

There’s a thing in the Times today which says that there is a consultation on unmarried couples sharing assets after a break up. Pretty much, if they separate they could be entitled to a share of a house sale and maintenance. They could also be given automatic inheritance rights if their partner dies without leaving a Will.

The proposal is that people who live together for three years or who have a child together would have these rights.

AIBU to be a bit conflicted on this? On the one hand, I really wish schools covered marriage and the rights and responsibilities it gives you. I’ve talked to women (who live with their partners) who were really taken aback to find out that they didn’t automatically get the same rights as married couples. On the other hand, when I was young (late teens / early twenties), I lived with a boyfriend who was a bit of a sponger - I’d have been really annoyed to find out that he was entitled to any of my money when we split up.

How on earth would it be proved that you’ve lived together as a couple rather than just flatmates if there are no kids?

If there are kids then the division of assets etc should prioritise their needs.

I think a much better solution to this perceived problem is to promote the idea to society of marriage being a legal contract rather than an expensive party.

If you want a share of the assets, you sign the contract.

I am not comfortable with this idea at all, three years is no time at all really. Having children together is possibly more reasonable as it should represent a long term commitment but in many cases it actually isn’t evidence of any long term intentions at all, sadly. I think that it shouldn’t be automatic, that both parties should be required to acknowledge the legal shift and actively agree to it.

I am speaking as someone who is not married and have been living with my partner for over 25 years and have children with him. I am not at all ignorant of the differences between being married and not being married and am happy with my personal choice, at this point in time.

So who's proposing this and what kind of force or backing does the consultation have?

No idea. The thing about marriage is that it is a contract as much as a love match. In my case, I lived with sponge-boyfriend for just over two years at university then moved back to my Mums (where he stayed over a lot). He would have claimed that counted towards the three years (and would have considered himself shortchanged when I disagreed).

Why should people be forced to entwine themselves legally with another person, if they don’t wish to? It’s ridiculous.

How will it work for those in polygamous (spiritual, not legal) marriages or those that practice polyamory and all live together?

I dont think this will ever come to anything, purely based on the fact that surely it would create more work in courts and they are already overstretched.
Also, marriage certificate is a clear legal document declaring you are in a committed relationship and wish to combine legally. Thats a start date.
Whereas my partner lives with me, but is effectively a lodger. No name on bills, but his post gets sent to my house. How could you prove this relationship was romantic for 3 years? You could claim it started romantic then became a lodger relationship for the majority of that time. Or that you were shagging but not 'partners'. Would there have to be very specific 'evidence' guidelines?
I think this would hurt more people (mostly women) than it would help. But then, maybe they've modelled it and done research or other countries do it and it works? Need to read up...

It’s an appalling idea and will never be legislated for.

House-mates, siblings, friends who like the idea of sharing, these people should not be made to give up their things to a person on the basis of having shared a house, but more to the point nor should couples.

We have a system that allows people to legally combine their finances and possessions, it is called marriage. If you want the legal protections of marriage then marry.

Article with sharetoken:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/fc14637a-7f57-42f4-b1d2-4ceca3667b36?shareToken=77d1eaeeef7f53753e357cb11734e8fc&ver=article

It’s a government consultation put forward by the Ministry of Justice. David Lammy gave a statement.

I don’t think it will go anywhere. It can’t be high on the Government’s list of priorities. Fairly sure there was a consultation on this when I was doing my law degree about 20 years ago and nothing happened then.

"The proposal is that people who live together for three years or who have a child together would have these rights."

I really hope they are not just framing them as "rights" as they just as much responsibilities and obligations.

So those of us who chose not to marry but live together, to not share assets would have to kick out our partners to avoid this?
it would need an opt out for people who wish to not be subject to this.

The thing about marriage is, you get married on a day at a time - before that, you’re not married: after that, you are. If people want the legal safeguards afforded by marriage, there is a very simple remedy. Living together is far more nebulous - if you end up with someone you met as a result of living in an HMO, who’s to say when the precise point was that you actually lived together? I think it’s utterly misguided - we have the institution of marriage, and indeed civil partnership for those who want the legal safeguards without being “married”.

I don't know why it needs to be overcomplicated. If you want these rights, you need to get married. That's literally what marriage is. It doesn't have to be some big production.

I think there would be an option to “opt out” … but I rather think not being married is currently the opt out.

The article says that the idea is that there would be an opt out system rather than an opt in, and that both partners would have to mutually agree to opt out. So you could be in a situation where you can’t opt out of this because your partner won’t agree, which would mean you’d need to end the relationship and move out, along with any children. Seems like a bad plan to me.

This is a bad idea. Many couples don’t get married precisely because they want to safeguard their assets - they may have children from other relationships, or they simply just don’t want shared finances. A lot of wealthy older women don’t want to marry for this reason, it’s not always men who are reluctant.

If you want the protections of marriage, get married.
All this is going to do is put people off living with their partner, unless they’re sure they want to commit as if they’re a married couple.

The current 'opt out' choice is to not get married. Why change something that has always worked?

I do think there needs to be more of a push into letting people know that there is no such thing as 'common law marriage' though. Some people still think it is a thing.

I think it is a good idea, maybe with some tweaking, as it gets around the Sharia court system creeping into the UK, where muslim couples are only married religiously and not legally, thus affording none of the hard won legal protections, that previous generations of women have fought hard for, to Muslim women living in the UK.

We can not have a parallel legal system being allowed to run in the UK and this is a step in the right direction to ending it.

Yes. I get cross when people say “schools should teach this” (because schools have plenty to do) but this could have been covered in PHSE. I suspect it would have been uncomfortable though, because so many children had parents who weren’t married.

This is not a good idea.

The article says that cohabiting couples are the fastest growing family type, but do they stay cohabiting? IME many couples cohabit for a period, then marry - their status isn't fixed. Many older, divorced people cohabit because they want to protect assets for their children or don't want to experience another messy divorce.

Having an opt-out is a bit silly too. How would
that work? Would you have to go to a solicitor and sign something? Would you be able to reverse
the opt-out? What if you subsequently got
married? People's status could be changing all the time.

It would be great if a way could be found to safeguard the interests of unmarried women who jeopardise their careers, pensions, assets etc when they have children. However, I don’t think the proposal is a fair or realistic option. At the end of the day, women are not children and they have options.

Common law marriages haven’t been a thing since before 1793. And even before then, it was only really a thing among peasants, who would make a promise to each other, have sex and viola, they were ‘married’. Usually these people didn’t have much in the way of money and being married didn’t give women any real rights anyway, it was more for morality and gave an ode of ‘respectability’ as well as legitimising children.

It wasn’t common practice among those with money, land, property or titles. Those people would always get married formally, to avoid any doubt on their heirs.

3 years is not long enough. If it was at least 8 to 10 years, that would be more reasonable.