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.

@Anonymouseky I had a similar situation. My dad had a second relationship after my mum died. They were both very clear that they would not marry as each had assets to pass to their own children. It makes me very angry that this change would deny people like him the companionship of cohabiting in later life without risking their children's inheritance.

I've just looked this up and yes I would agree after 28 years you should have been entitled to something, as you likely facilitated their career advancement but wouldn't it have been easier to just get married?
I don't think this should be automatic after 3 years though. This legislation is deranged and a field day for lawyers.

Counterpoint: Like many women, I have given very considerable thought to my partner moving in to my house after a considerable number of years in a relationship (ten!), after our respective DC became 'proper' independent adults. My choosing not to marry and for him not to make house-related contributions is very deliberate. I pay for it all, for reasons of my own financial protection, that are well thought through and mutually understood.

It would be unforgiveable for women like me to have the rug pulled out from under us, and so late in life too, where there are no mutual, dependent children between us.

Also, if David Lammy thinks that muslim women are vulnerable by being duped into thinking their religious marrages are legal when they're not, then Lammy should legislate for that, not punish women like me who did our research and are willingly and knowingly remaining UNmarried by choice for the sake of our own future security and that of our own children. I worked my backside off for the money to pay the mortgage on this house and finally own it.

I doubt anyone's happy about these muslim women being duped and manipulated. Lammy as Justice Secretary has the means and the opportunity to bring forward a Green Paper very speedily after the by-election.

Also surely they can't backdate this, so the 3 years can only start after the legislation comes in ( and it will). So couples then have to decide whether to marry or split up/ live separately? And if they have separate houses how many nights a week are they able to spend together - is the government going to legislate for that too?

Absolutely this, Ive always thought this. There's also civil partnership if the word 'marriage' is something you can't hack

Thanks, I've started to fill it in.

Disagree.
What does facilitated career advancement even mean? It's so regressive to women's rights.
Good little woman helping her great man shine.

Though that is bad, my main objection to it is state overreach, and most fundamentally of all- and I'm grateful to a PP for articulating it-and really is the most important thing here imo:

property ownership is the bedrock of Western society and this erodes it
(not exact quote).

People really need to grasp this.
It won't matter if you've no aspiration to own property. Fair enough, I'm not judging, but it will if you do.

I'm banging on here because I really really want this thread to run.

Property ownership is the bedrock of Western civilisation. It really is worth repeating.

Lammy and his merry band of twits are attempting to ruin this.

Well apart from the Muslim men duping and manipulating them. They are not being manipulated by nobody, and it's the men that Labour usually listen to so surprising that they suddenly care about Muslim women. What happens if they already have a legal wife?

Interestingly it only appears to impact the intestacy laws, and there doesn't appear to be a thing whereby cohabiting overwrites your previous Will, so then your dad would be alright, but you end up with an odd situation where they can automatically end up having to give someone cash when you split up, but you don't have to do anything new to actively avoid them inheriting, assuming you already have a Will. Feels like a right dogs dinner of a plan to me.

I think my gut is:

1. No changes to intestacy laws. Particularly if you have children. Many many people don't have over £320k of assets and if you share kids with the person then you'll be able to use the assets the kids inherit to support the family.

1. No changes to cohabitation laws if you don't have children. If you are two independent adults then unless you actively choose to contract into it you should be assumed to want to be independent adults.

1. Some changes if you do have children. The situations where women are left destitute after spending years caring for children may well be the woman's fault for having children but are nonetheless very problematic. I think this does have to be considered quite carefully and the base assumption should be that it only relates to assets acquired during the partnership except in exceptional circumstances.

1. Some changes potentially to what constitutes a legal marriage. E.g. if there's a concern about religious marriages without a similar civil marriage then they could legislate so you can't conduct new religious marriages without a civil marriage alongside/within a week prior or something. It wouldn't get rid of every instance and unscrupulous people could probably still avoid it but it might reduce that risk.

1. Changed to child maintenance so all income including e.g. dividend income is accounted for when determining what should be paid and also in terms of making sure there are severe consequences for non payment that are easily executable by women.

My base belief is that you shouldn't generally autocontract people by default into something they haven't agreed to except where the other options to avoid unfairness are basically impracticable.

I think so too .

I made both posts actually. But laws already exist in England and Scotland whereby cohabitees can get some compensation in certain circumstances as the lady of 28 years had done by taking legal action presumably.
So it seems our property rights are already not as clear cut as we may have thought.
I expect she deserved sth after 28 years just on decency grounds.
But these proposals definitely seem a step far too far...after 3 years lol.
It's almost as if they want to stop people from cohabiting completely which makes zero sense re the housing stock lack of affordability and availability.

Totally agree. I believe a well-worded will would still be upheld though (at the moment!)

What does facilitated career advancement even mean? It's so regressive to women's rights.
Good little woman helping her great man shine.

Many (even career) women and some men facilitate their partner's career advancement. Even with 2 people who enter the workforce at the same time, bring similar assets to the relationship, one will likely be the higher earner and if they have children, life and logistics gets in the way.
When an expat contract comes up, you can guess which party becomes the trailing spouse mostly?
Best to get married if you plan to give up your career though.

I understand that there is already a system by which a cohabiting partner can make a claim if they can prove they've contributed in some way to the maintenance of the property (also paying utility bills?).
I also understand that there is already a system by which a woman/man can make a claim against their late partner's estate.

These systems already exist, though.

This is further erosion though based on the fact that even a childless couple can claim after 3 years.

Yes. I appreciate that, but it's nobody else's fault that somebody didn't have the sense to marry.
If they're organised enough to have a careers as opposed to a job, they should blooming well be able to schedule a trip to the register office.
It's no excuse.

Besides which, I should imagine that most people who are trailing a high-flying partner around the world are married, anyway, because they are by definition organised people who leave as little to chance and the whims of others as possible.

This could be horrendous and back fire in many ways
I would be happy with maybe the inheritance tax rules being changed to include cohabiting partners getting the same treatment if you left them in your will.
But the entitlement to your money after 3 years living together is a cocklodgers paradise, just stick it out for 3 years and take half of the other persons assets, maybe more if the cocklodger has a child even if it's not with the person they were cohabiting with
I'd be happy in cases of domestic violence for something specific to be available to the victim to claim assets

I think this may actually reduce how many people have children going forward as anyone who owns a house will be reluctant to live with someone else, so their relationship may never move onto cohabitation, marriage, having children or whatever because of the risk of losing their money in a few years if it goes south

If people want the legal protection that comes with marriage, then go get married. But there are people happily cohabiting on the basis that they don't want that
I own my house, my ex moved in with me, I paid for the mortgage and all repairs, maintenance, appliances , furniture. He paid towards the bills, food etc. he didn't pay anywhere near what I was paying out each month, was able to save while I couldn't. If he could've taken half of everything I had sacrificed over the years for I'd have been devastated.

Well I totally get that marriage provides a ,'contract'..the whole reason I WONT get married. My partner came to me with a couple of suitcases, he's not leaving with half my house

I agree but while I abhor domestic abusers I don't see why it's a valid reason to claim their assets.

Besides which do you really think a domestic abuser is going to just play ball and hand over any assets over without fuss?

This could extend abuse not stop it.
What women need is to be supported by neutral parties.

The reason I think there should maybe be a case to change things there is because in cases of domestic abuse, there's quite often financial abuse that goes with it. Whether that is stopping the other person working, taking all their income, etc etc
I think there could be some legislation that is put in place for example if they are taken to court and convicted for their crimes, the judge could also enforce the financial order at the same time and if it is court ordered they could enforce property sales, repayment schedules etc. I'm not sure you could enforce much in the cases where they don't end up in court. Perfect no, but I think there is something they could look into there

If someone has been financially abused, there may be recourse for them, to sue the abuser on the grounds of coercive control, fraud, perhaps theft, depending on the circumstances...

This terrible non-solution of forcibly changing ownership of thousands of people's assets with no sound contractual basis is not a good solution. It's chopping one's head off to fix the problem of a low ceiling.

And I agree with the pp above who doesn't believe in the concept of "facilitating someone's career". Sorry but that is totally bollocks really. If someone has "facilitated" you to benefit financially, pay them a wage.

My cleaner is paid £70 a week, she "facilitates our careers" and has done for over 10 years, I'm very grateful for that, she is fab. But that doesn't entitle her to a share of our house (!) Even though she spends several hours a week in it too.

The whole thing is state overreach as a moral arbiter in who "deserves" someone else's assets.

Does my cleaner deserve a share of our house? She works really hard, she's very reliable, and without her we wouldn't be able to work the hours we do.

And what about my son's nursery workers? They "facilitate our careers" maybe more than anyone else. They've never set foot in our house though, which this proposal seems to think is relevant.

I know a mum who recently quit her job (as my colleague) to be a part time PA to her surgeon husband. He employs her, as he should (and presumably that has tax-efficiency). They're also married.

If you (general you) are facilitating someone's career, by being their PA or admin assistant etc, you need to be paid for that.

Just looking after your own children and home is not facilitating someone's career. It's... looking after your own children and home.

Yes I don't think there should be a blanket rule that screws everyone else over. I feel like they could work out financial orders when convicting domestic abusers of their crimes without the victim having to go through a later legal battle over the finances and without impacting everyone else who wants to cohabit and be financially independent from one another

Leaving aside the specific rights and wrongs of this proposal, I believe that as a general principle, it is a very bad idea to have legal/financial obligations imposed upon people without their explicit and informed consent.