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.

Three years is way too short & it will cause more problems than it solves.
10 years maybe.

But there are two options already open to couples - marriage or a civil partnership. If both couples agree, they don't have to have the pomp & ceremony of a wedding to enter into a legally binding contract with each other.

I understand why it's being discussed though & think it's an attempt to protect women who often get left literally holding the baby & with no rights to their (often) wealthier partner's assets.
But having a far more robust child maintenance system which seeks to stop fathers relinquishing their responsibilities once a relationship ends is more urgently needed I think.

Agree that the information on marriage and cohabitation is freely available, and that adults can make choices. DC can’t, though, and are hugely affected by their parents’ actions.

No I'm afraid that argument doesn't wash.

I believe it is the woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy or not, however, with this comes responsibility.

The man could be a sensible sort who thinks it best to have an abortion.
He has no choice, though.

Your post is nonsense. Sorry.

Often with costs to the state for the women and DC, while fathers keep their money. So the Q is what’re the better ways to require or encourage transfer of the fathers’ money to the women (also benefiting the DC)

But CMS doesn't compensate for loss of pension earnings whilst on maternity/ SAHM/ part time providing childcare. This provides that protection.

In divorce it is already possible to ring fence premarital assets (when fair and reasonable to do so), therefore i can't see it being any different here for 'pre relationship' assets. But it offers more protection for women (and it is mostly women) of disabled kids who can never return full-time to the workforce.

He has every right to use a condom or get a vasectomy if he never wants kids/ is completely done with having kids and soon will be able to take a males 'pill'.

Abortion might be an option open to women, but men are still responsible for their own actions.

So why do you want to target the childfree to make it easier for parents?

A revolutionised revamped CMS could solve all of those things you mentioned - and this is what you should be canpaigning for.

Leave childfree and unmarried people out of it!!

(also those prenup ring fence type arrangements you describe and NOT legally binding, merely advisory. There is a risk they would not be held up)

If a boy or man becomes a father, whatever the circumstances, and is a shit father in every way, he should still pay proper maintenance. Current UK rates are too low.

This kind of change on cohabitation laws would require fathers to share some of ‘their’ money.

Many people, particularly in later life second plus relationships do not get married because they do not wish to. A successful woman who has built a career, good savings and good pension pot might have a relationship with a man with a more fluid approach to career and finances. Fine, but if they break up, I would not want him walking away with a small fortune, just because we had a relationship for a limited period. That could have massive impact on me and my family.

Where have i said that, I've previously said it should probably only applied to cohabitating couples with shared children (including adult children and deceased children).

Everyone else shouldn’t be penalised for this. Revamp CMS as another PP says. Single and co-habiting and childfree people shouldn’t have to consider how women who have kids with feckless men support themselves.

No, I am not comfortable with this premise at all.
The line in the sand is marriage (or civil partnership).
If you want the legal protection then you cross that line and get it.
What would stop my adult child's former boyfriend (who is now, some years later their lodger) claiming it was still an enduring relationship.
Or, as in this case, the lodger is the richer partner so what would stop my adult child claiming it was subsisting.
This is a ridiculous idea.
Either shit or get off the pot as they say.

I think it’s a good idea where children are involved. It’s more complicated otherwise.

Surely when living with someone in late teens, (OP example) , neither has money.

For couples without DC, presumably the logic is that in cases of breakups of a longstanding, cohabiting couple with household income / assets that meant neither qualified for state housing, benefits and so on, sometimes post breakup one of them (a high % of the time a woman) does qualify.

Which costs the state / taxpayers money, while the other partner keeps all the money/assets.

So it’d reduce costs to the state / taxpayers if transfer of money between individuals was required / encouraged.

We have it where I live, its been in place since 2003, upon split anything bought and enjoyed together would be a joint asset.

So if two people bought a home to live in together it would be included, if someone already had a home and their partner moved in it wouldn’t be included, unless they opted to include it. So if you want assets owned before you lived together can be included you can do that and stipulate which bits are included, but unless you do that they’re automatically excluded.

The best thing to do is not encourage having children in these kind of precarious setups in the first place.

Mumsnet is becoming increasingly right-wing and anti-feminist by the day. The Times has put a negative spin on a proposal intended to support women - survivors of domestic abuse and bereaved unmarried partners - and mumsnet laps it up.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-of-unmarried-couples-to-get-stronger-rights

And how would that be proved? That court hearing would be like an epidode of the Jeremy Kyle show.

It is completely unrealistic that courts could investigate every relationship claim between Ben snd Shel, Ben snd Gavin etc. When they moved in, what the relationship was or wasn't and whether they were having sex. It's a complete nonsense. If a court did do this they could be taking assets from a parent & child to give to a boyfriend or girlfriend that is not the child's parent.

I was wondering about this. I have chosen not to get married mainly in order to protect my daughter’s inheritance but also because the idea of marriage doesn’t appeal to me, and if it was a choice between marriage and separation I would separate but that seems a brutal and unnecessary choice to have to make.

Does that mean that because I have reservations about the financial aspects of marriage my 7 + year happy and stable relationship is no longer valid? Marriage wouldn’t work for me but I am committed to my DP and have no plans to separate. It seems harsh and heavy-handed to force people who are happy with their compromise to adopt a “marriage or die” approach.

It’s a terrible proposal as it would cause a lot of problems for many people.

I know a guy 30ish who owns a flat, which he’s paid for from inheritance and paying a mortgage. For about 4 years his girlfriend has been living with him but she doesn’t pay anything. Nothing towards the mortgage as it’s his asset, and he pays all the bills. She has a good job and salary and spends all her money on luxury living. There are no kids. Under these proposals she could be entitled to his property. Fair enough if they got married but I assume they haven’t married for a reason.

There’s also merit in ensuring that partners with plenty of money of their own don’t sponge on others. I’ve read on here of men making the woman pay for an over large chunk of things, pleading poverty, then being discovered to have plenty of money at the end of a relationship. I’d be happy to see that resolved in law, so the woman is repayed.

I think this is a great idea. I have two children with my long term partner and we've been together for years. I have never wanted marriage or any form of ceremony for personal reasons, but I have always had a lingering worry about things like assets, separation, or what happens if one of us dies. I welcome this wholeheartedly.

A huge number of people my age are not married and many have no plans to marry, partly because of what we saw growing up and the relationships modelled to us.

I do think it should be opt-in rather than opt-out though. Many people are not aware of their legal rights or changes in the law. I would hate for people to discover years later that by simply living together, they had unknowingly entered into a legal arrangement affecting their assets or finances.

I think this is such dangerous legislation because it goes to the heart of contracts in general.

In what other situation do we presume people to have signed away half their assets without making them actually sign it?

If someone lends me their car on a regular basis, can I eventually claim that I own it? Of course not. They'd have to sign documents and hand paperwork over, before the car is mine.

Simarly if a man crashes in my spare room regularly, how can he claim he now owns a share of my house?!

What difference should it make if you're in a sexual relationship or not (as per the bullet points in the draft someone shared)?

It's one thing to say that unmarried fathers have financial responsibility for their children. Legal framework already exists for this. But to allow unmarried adults to seize assets from other adults, without consent, is theft.

I think the key word is "intended to".
A brilliant intention which most people would support, but foolish not to look at unintended consequences.

As I said earlier, we already have a system to help the (usually) mother claim money where children are involved. It just doesn't work properly. Why not reform that?

Yes that’s an example where it would be a bad idea.