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.

We have an opt out in New Zealand. It is successfully challenged occasionally so not fail safe. Even putting your house in a family trust has failed in court.

Just reading about the NZ Property (Relationships) Act 2002. It means that at the 3 year point of living together all “relationship property” becomes assumed to be shared 50/50. To opt out, you both need to pay for independent-from-each-other legal advice before signing the contracting out agreement.

When my DP moved in with me, I owned my property and he did not own a property. I had savings, he did not. In NZ, after 3 years half of that would then be his, unless he agreed to sign the opt out and we were both able to pay for it. I don’t think I’d have agreed for him to move in under those circumstances.

I also found this article about the issues this act causes for domestic violence survivors:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/409237/domestic-abuse-victims-call-for-end-to-no-fault-divorce-settlements

No division of assets for that in New Zealand. Just child support as normal.

Inheritance isn't marital property anyway unless you comingle it. You are always advised by the estate lawyer to keep it separate and it has to be paid into an account with only your name on it.

Surely the most sensible thing would be to have to opt in? What if one wants to opt out and the other doesn't?

He would be protected if he kept the flat separate as inheritance is not considered marital property. He could charge her rent but not allow her to pay mortgage or maintenance.
Assets and money you have before your partner moves in remain yours, it is only property bought during your relationship that is shared. It can still get complicated though.

In New Zealand it is automatic and you have to opt out. Not sure about other countries.

The problem with the opt out system is starry eyed people don't bother to opt out as they are in love and are sure their relationship will last. Just like people get married never dreaming they will get divorced.

I guess I’m just struggling with this enforced change of legal status that affects people’s personal assets done to them without their explicit consent. It would affect me if brought in and applied retrospectively, and I’d want a hell of a lot more consultation and involvement than just being told that I am now in a de facto legal relationship that I hadn’t agreed to.

Yep. Exactly this.

Any opt out would be shaky - always at the whim of the courts.

I wpuld never take something's word for it "dont worry there is an opt out , totally safe"

is it fuck. Not worth the risk IMO.

This is sneaky. They are not advertising this at all. Very dangerous. The point of getting married/ having legal protection is that both parties opt in. This way they are not. It just happens (and who is to say when the relationship first starts becoming serious?). This has red flags all over it.

If he contributes to your mortgage he could still legally make a claim for a share of the value of your home if you split. Also if he contributes to home improvements he could. I’m terrified about moving in with a partner ever again after my long term ex was very controlling financially to my detriment even though we had a child together.

at the moment if you aren’t married it’s much harder to go through courts. You have to be represented. I have first hand experience unfortunately. There are no protections currently if an unmarried ex makes financially disastrous decisions to your detriment. It’s all very wrong and definitely in need of an overhaul especially where children are involved.

Please fill in the consultation and share it. If they are consulting then they are serious.

Exactly this. The biggest problem with this kind of automatic system is it fails to account for the different types of cohabiting relationships. I know many people who have fallen into cohabiting without really considering themselves committed. Sometimes it’s convenient, sometimes people wake up one day and realise they are basically living together anyway. It happened a lot during covid. Once in this relationship it’s harder to get out of it so they seem to drag on, but there is a reason why neither party is taking it to the next level.

So because of all the people who can't be expected to be able to understand that you don't legally obtain married status unless you get married... people who don't want to be treated as married can all be expected to understand that they need to opt out of effectively being married if they don't want to be treated as if they were married?! Maybe that makes sense in somebody's mind...

This is so ripe for exploitation and abuse - any fool can see that. The romance scammers will be writing their script now, ready for the day this comes into effect, so they don't waste a moment for their opportunity.

It's a truism that nobody falls in love as quickly as a man in need of housing.

This proposal will just encourage this behaviour even more.

I really disagree with this.

There is already child maintenance to cover for men providing for children (although I firmly believe it needs strengthening a lot & enforcing properly)

If you want someone to share in your assets you marry them, if you don't you don't.

Yep, its so wrong. It seems to me that there are women who have educated themselves on their rights based on the law as it is. Then there are women who have made reckless choices based on the law as it is, and have found themselves in a totally predictable, bad situation. So the government thinks the law should now be changed to save the women who made bad choices, at the expense of women who made smart choices based on the law at the time.

Also, when I purchased a house recently, my mortgage provider had my partner sign something to say he had no claim on the property. Would this law over ride that, because I imagine a lot of banks won't be happy if so.

Having said that, I do think bringing children into the situation changes things.

You cant have it both ways.
Marry or Civil partnership if you want rights to each others property.
If not then dont
There's simply no need for any more 'mechanisms' particularly for those in a long term relationship with children. Just register your civil partnership.
Incidentally you should be aware that there is no iht liable between married/civil partners and that it effectively is doubled for the children when the surviving spouse passes away (if you are leaving a house then a married couple/civil partnership can effectively leave £1m (depending on house worth) to their children tax free).

If you don't want a law for cohabitants, write to the Ministry of Justice [email protected] and tell them why.
The full consultation paper describing the plan is here https://consult.justice.gov.uk

For those who are interested, the proposal for the opt out is that it would only be valid if signed as a deed, each party had taken independent legal advice and each gave financial disclosure.

This is a huge barrier to exercising the right to opt out because there would be a significant cost to it (potentially thousands) and you would need to disclose all of your assets to a partner whom you may not be cohabiting with yet and from whom you intend to keep separate finances.

These sort of conditions also leave open the possibility of challenge, such as to the adequacy of the financial disclosure.

It is in fact more burdensome and expensive than getting married.

Absolutely. I’m outraged at this proposal. People need to complete the consultation questionnaire on the government website if they don’t want this to go ahead. The government have no right to impose this on people when they have already made arrangements.

Thanks, just filled it in. No change needed. Support yourself and walk off with only what you brought to the relationship. No one should be out of pocket to some person they lived with for a while. Marriage exists if you want to commit.

Australia is even more entrenched in gaslighting and giving women's rights away to transwomen, for them to add on to their own existing equivalent rights, than we are

That's an opinion, not an example.

It’s an absolutely dreadful idea. If you want the rights and priveledges of marriage then get married.