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.

It's a stupid idea. All it will do is lead to more people deciding to live alone, which is already a major cause of the housing shortage. No way would I risk getting into a live in relationship and risking someone taking half my kids inheritance from them. There should be more awareness of the importance of marriage and civil partnerships, and that ' common law marriage' is a nonsense. In many live in relationships at least one partner ( the one saying oh marriage is just a piece of paper/I don't believe in marriage/I don't need a piece of paper to show commitment) know full well what marriage means. The relationships where both parties have actively chosen, while aware of all the facts are ones where provision has been put in place for both parties.

Why is mumsnet so upset about a third option? Lots of Countries have this third option and it hasn't resulted chaos and has worked quite well. Australia has had it for decades.

X number of wealthier partners (generally men) are not ‘opting in’, later breaking up and their exes (& sometimes DC) are in ‘financial hardship’ affecting costs to the state for benefits, housing.

probably the situations also affecting the health, wellbeing and educational achievements of the affected DC. (With resulting problems and costs for the individuals and the state)

It’s getting ridiculous as it seems facts count for nothing these days. You’re either married or you’re not. It’s the same as the argument about biological sex, which is now apparently so confusing we need Supreme Court rulings, consultations and guidelines to tell us something people have been able to distinguish since the dawn of time. The world has gone bonkers.

Thanks for a respectful reply! I would expect the scope of protections and rights to be narrower than those given by civil partnership (which is essentially marriage by a different name). But still more than "nothing"

The sex/gender thing is irrelevant to this @summermidnightsun

In this case the facts include that the status quo has high costs for the financially and economically less well off in the partnership, DC and the state.

OK let's say they invent this new form of legal protection.

It's called the "Non married or civil partners legal union" and offers the same rights and protections as marriage or civil partnership. You have to opt in - pay a fee and go through a process. Will you be against it for personal reasons - will you not bother but still want the protections?

We have an "opt in" for the same legal protections for people that don't want marriage already and it's Civil Partnership.

Then get married! It’s there for that reason, and anyone concerned about not being financially and legally tied should get married.

If they don’t want to, that’s their choice, and many people will intentionally not marry BECAUSE they don’t want to share their assets and be legally tied.

Pick a side. You can’t pick side 2 but want the ‘benefits’ of side 1. Just switch to side 1 and get married. Many people on side 2 are quite happy cohabitating and being legally separate.

What rights would you like to see(that are narrower than marriage)?

Because there is a third option at the moment.
Option 1 Marriage
Option 2 Civil partnership
Option 3 Choose to maintain separate finances. If you want to secure the transition of assets do it by house ownership form (joint tenants) and your Will.

The new Option 3 removes the current Option 3. Option 1 and 2 are already available for people that want shared assets.

What’s being suggested

Spot on. I am absolutely opposed to three versions of the same outcome with no alternative option. If anything happened to my DH I would very much want the option to cohabit in future whilst retaining my assets to pass to my children.

People need to understand what marriage means and seperate it from the concept of a wedding.

Regarding provision for children this needs to be done via an effective CMS.

For this scenario, what would be the process for opting in? How would that look, be verified etc what would people have to do in order to opt in?

What's the actual difference in civil partnership and marriage anyway?
Please no replies about patriarchy, fancy weddings or any of that stuff-I'm talking about legal things here.

I thought it was brought in for gay people to have an equivalent of marriage.

I'm guessing that this consultation will go nowhere.
Cohabitees are no longer young people who shack up, they're usually people who both have jobs, have joint mortgages. Or just rent.
(Most women who have kids work now.)

Or older couples who are divorced and can't/don't want children anyway who want the ability to split with little hassle.
Or people on benefits long-term so no real savings to be made.
If the father is unemployed, the state's not saving anything at all!
In fact, if he moves out it'll cost more to house him.

In reality it would only protect a few at the expense of the many.

No need whatsoever for a third option. If couple choose not to get married fine but then don't expect any benefits that marriage bring.

Why on earth are we meant to pander to people who can't be bothered to get married or have a civil partnership or "have a problem with marriage"?

When children are involved it’s excellent but without then I think the state should keep its nose out. Watch a huge amount of break ups if they bring this in and people just becoming more wary about moving in together. This has been the law in Australia for a while now.

When I say narrower protections, I mean things like recognising caregiving contributions, protecting people who gave up earnings or career progression to raise children, and preventing obviously unfair outcomes where people have built a life together.

I'm not arguing for full marriage rights, automatic 50/50 splits, tax benefits, pension rights or recreating marriage under another name.

My argument is simply that there may be space between "full legal union" and "no protection whatsoever." I don't think that removes option 3.

You can absolutely argue people should not make those sacrifices without marriage or civil partnership. My point is simply that millions of people do, and I don't think discussing whether there should be some limited protection for those situations is unreasonable.

As an aside you have all asked valid questions about my point of view and really made me think! :)

I think what I’m not clear about is exactly what problem this solution is aimed to solve. I think that needs to be made very clear in the consultation with evidence as to why and how the proposals would resolve the specific identified issues.

But why can't they just lay it out plainly what rights and responsibilities marriage will bring you and promote it to people who want those R&Rs whilst making it clear that they are optional and you will not have them (or indeed be forced to have them) if you choose not to get married.

We're not toddlers, whereby the government need to hide mushed up green vegetables that we'll otherwise turn our noses up at in our turkey dinosaurs, or make healthy foods into fun smiley face shapes that we will eat - because they know better than we do what we need to do.

If somebody tells you that 3+3=6, but you decide that you don't like, agree with or accept the number 6, that doesn't make it their problem to try to find a workaround to make it add up to a different number that you will be happy with.

I remember this being floated before on more than one occasion - it caused a wave of panic in the mid 80s with people who had a lodger in the spare room. Mortgage affordability tests were different then, deposits low and multipliers high so some bought 2 bedroom flats with the intention of using the income to contribute to costs because the steady rent made it more affordable than a solo purchase of a 1 bed ( The maths did make sense at the time) I was in a couple of ‘flatshares ‘ like this where I wasn’t really a flatmate but a lodger - fine by me at the time as it meant I lived somewhere better in London than I could afford in my own. There was the worry that a long term lodger could assert that it had been a romantic relationship and claim.

Legally absolutely nothing. Materially you can get civil partnered by just signing paperwork, to get married you have to say the legal words. Thats it really.

I’m not sure we really need civil partnership anymore - it was only introduced as a gateway to same sex marriage and later made available to all couples. Vanishingly few people opt for civil partnership these days.

So what protections would you include in the opt in and what one would you exclude?

As far as I'm concerned, while I am not 100%-only 99%-about what I've said here, I am absolutely 100% when I say that if a couple do not have children together this stupid proposal can get binned right now.

Couple cohabiting with no children together. .
One of them does not work.
It is ridiculous in this instance to suggest if they split the non-working party gets anything.

It is I suppose morally unfair in marriage when the non-working person with no kids expects continued support from the working spouse when they divorce but I don't see it as a legitimate complaint -they freely signed up for it by marrying.

That government headline - "Millions of unmarried couples to get stronger rights" - is extremely inaccurate and seems designed to deceive. Why are they not equally highlighting the responsibilities that you will also get - and the rights that you would then potentially lose?

It's no different in principle from a bank telling you that they can give you £50,000 to do loads of positive, enjoyable things with... but 'forget' to tell you that you will have to repay it to them each month, for years and years, along with a load of interest.

If you understand the pros and cons of loans and you go into it with your eyes open and actively and willingly sign up, then that's great; but - like with marriage - it is disgracefully dishonest to try to make out that it's all rainbows and lollipops whilst neglecting to equally publicise the potential downsides and responsibilities that many people won't want to have forced on to them.

In many countries there is a marriage-lite contract. It gives you tax benefits, some protection, automatic parental rights but they are crucially much easier to dissolve than marriage. I think they normally assume separated assets.