Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

cohabitation

26 replies

marantha · 27/11/2009 08:41

Am I being unreasonable in thinking that the concept of making cohabitees "married" in certain respects (e.g. if they live with a cohabitee for 2 years and their partner dies intestate they are next-of-kin by default) is wrong as it takes away a person's choice as regard whether they wish to married or not?

OP posts:
bogie · 27/11/2009 08:45

Yanbu but I think there should be a choice, me and dp can't really afford to get married we have been together for 6 years and we would like to be classed in the same bracket as married couples, but I can see why some people wouldn't want this.

weegiemum · 27/11/2009 08:48

But if you really want to be married (rather than have a big wedding) it costs about £100. So if people really want to be married they can be.

I think that there shouldn't be such a thing as "common law" as it does take away choice. There shouldn't be next of kin by default - things like that shoudl be planned, not done by default!

Stigaloid · 27/11/2009 08:49

YABU - not everyone wants to get married but if sadly one dies the other is left nothing. They have no rights to funds, homes, even child welfare can be questioned. Similarly if one partner gets hurt and needs hospital care the partner is not next of kin so may not be allowed to visit and has no say over any procedures that take place. Giving them equal rights protects people. They still aren't married, just protected

IsItMeOr · 27/11/2009 08:51

YABU - as the person will still have the option of making a will so that their estate can be divided as they wish.

Is there a proposal to do this (go-to-bed-without-watching-news-because-baby-still-doesn't-sleep emoticon)?

pippa251 · 27/11/2009 08:53

YANBU yet I also don't believe that if you marry someone you shouldn't be automatically entitled to half when it comes to inheritance and assests required before the marriage where there are no children in the picture.

diddl · 27/11/2009 08:56

YABU.

People can make a will!

Also, married couples can make a will& leave it to someone other than their spouse!

PavlovtheForgetfulCat · 27/11/2009 08:59

If you are not married, and want your partner to have half of everything, or whatever proportion, then you need a will.

I am out on if I think it is unreasonable or not though. Before I got married, I ensured I had legal paperowork entitling my then dp (now DH) to half the property, for example as although it was my mortgage, it is our home and always was. (did not bother with a will, only had debts at the time!).

And then we got married.

I think i am leaning towards YANBU, but am prepared to have my argument changed.

marantha · 27/11/2009 09:00

OK, I just want to say that the idea of giving equal rights to cohabitees is dangerous and ultimately unnecessary.
It is dangerous because it gives the government the right to interfere in the personal sexual lives of two consenting adults who- key point here- may not wish it.
It strips people of the right to live with another adult ON THEIR OWN TERMS.

It is unnecessary because if people DO wish to make their partner the recipient of their estate they have one of two options ALREADY:

1, Marriage.
2, Will-making.

OP posts:
marantha · 27/11/2009 09:03

I must admit that as people can ALREADY do points 1 and 2 above, I am of the mind that most cohabitees would not welcome the idea of legalities imposed upon them by the state anyway. It will be interesting if this thread confirms/denies that view.

OP posts:
Asana · 27/11/2009 09:14

YANBU.

If people wish to cohabit, there are ways to set up their financial affairs to reflect their wishes to act as though they are married eg placing partner's name on deed to the house, arranging property ownership as tenants in common as to 50% each, ensuring that they have a valid will in place, contracts regarding any debts/assets etc.

I really do feel that providing cohabitees rights as though they are married will lead to a lot of confusion eg what length of time must they cohabit to attain this position in law, what happens if they break up at some point and reunite (will such rights continue, or will this create a new starting point in law?). What if one cohabitee is adamant that they do not wish to be treated as a married couple? Does that person have to "contract out"? If they break up permanently after 2 years, will such rights continue in some form or another, especially if there are children involved? If each cohabitee has children from an earlier/different relationship, how will these children be treated under the law if either cohabitee dies intestate? Will they need to have been adopted by each respective cohabitee to inherit from either estate?

Too many questions, I find, could potentially lead to a mini-deluge of litigation (considering the increase in the number of people who cohabit) that the courts can ill-afford. If people wish to have the same rights as married/civil partnership couples, there is an easy way to achieve this - enter into a marriage/civil partnership.

So many people argue that they do not want to be party to a "religious" institution, but that is a fallacy. Marriage/civil partnerships are no longer necessarily religious institutions (unless one decides to be married in church/receive a religious blessing) - at the basic heart of it, they serve as contracts to reflect one person's intentions as to another.

Marriages and civil partnerships also do not cost the earth - all you need is to register your intention to get married/enter into a civil partnership no less than 15 days before the date you wish to do so, and this costs £30 pounds per person. The ceremony at your local registry office will cost £40, and a marriage/civil partnership certificate costs £3.50. This means, in total, a marriage/civil partnership need cost no more than £103.50.

I say all this as a former cohabitee (now married). At the time, my partner and I arranged our affirs to reflect that we chose to live as a married couple (having valid wills which we renewed on a regular basis, setting up properties bought in the UK as "tenants-in-common" as to 50% each, ensuring any loans taken out were placed in both our names etc, placing our names down as next-of-kin to one another whenever either of us was in hospital, having a drawn up, witnessed and signed document stating that we considered ourselves to be next-of-kin and had the first/final say in the event of emergency/unexpected medical treatment and the person in hospital being incapacitated etc). I will admit that it wasn't easy trying to juggle all these things, so we did the next rational thing and got married to remove any doubt or possible confusion.

(Can you see that I've thought way too long and hard about this? )

marantha · 27/11/2009 09:27

Asana, I agree with you on almost everything here apart from one point: I actually believe that making cohabitation akin to marriage would actually decrease cohabitating unions.
It's a case of Occam's razor i.e. the most obvious answer is usually correct- if cohabitees DO wish to be considered married, why aren't they then actually married?
I can only conclude that it is because they do not wish to be married (I pass absolutely no moral judgement on this decision- this is not about whether marriage or cohabitation is better than the other or any of that malarkey).

I think that the majority of people would take offence of being classed as married when they don't wish to be and make the choice to live apart- especially the young ones who are not 100% certain if they wish to spend their life with their partner.

OP posts:
Ivykaty44 · 27/11/2009 09:38

so many people don't make a will though and it is not alwys their choice that there live in partner doesn't make a will a dies interstate...

I asked on a thread not so long ago about who had made wills - one lady said her dp refused - so that leaves her up shit street without a paddle, just cos he doesn't want to face his own mortality?

Other problem is you can't take life insurance out against someone else - unless you are buisness partners, so not even that is a choice.

longwee · 27/11/2009 10:02

Cohabitees don't have much in the way of rights - if things aren't in joint name the other doesn't have any legal claim on stuff or a house. If one dies the other isn't automatically next of kin. The common-law thing is a myth. Or do you ask because it is being changed?

marantha · 27/11/2009 10:06

Ivykaty44, I do believe that any partner who can prove that they were the dependent of a person who dies intestate already has the option of making a claim on the deceased's estate so maybe, just maybe, the lady would be entitled to some of her partner's money should he die intestate. Of course, I think the onus would be on the person who thought of themselves as being a dependent actually having to go out of their way to prove that they had solid grounds for being classed as a dependent. I don't think just living together and having a relationship would be enough in ITSELF (I could be wrong here and I don't mind being told that I am).

If this IS the case, then why the need for extra legislation?
Surely if there is a genuine case for a claim they'll be provided for anyway?

OP posts:
marantha · 27/11/2009 10:08

longwee, I believe that that plans are being discussed on whether or not to change the legal position on cohabitee inheritance by the law commission.

OP posts:
Morloth · 27/11/2009 10:12

How is this going to apply to long term flat mates? Or for people who enjoy living together for a time but do not want the commitment of marriage? Seems almost like a sneaky way to force people into getting "married".

Ivykaty44 · 27/11/2009 10:14

yes - hoepfully after a paying a solicitor to do so, there would be some money she could claim - though she may lose and the money she would have to pay to try to fight this aswell.

Cruel really for the partner to do this, rather selfish.

I don't think living together you should get automatic rights - but I think when you buy a house together 8and8 live in that house (so not rented out property) then it should automaticly be set out so that the house is going to the other named on the deeds unless otherwise stated in a will...

That would mane you had to make a will if you wanted soemthing different over property

Asana · 27/11/2009 10:16

"I asked on a thread not so long ago about who had made wills - one lady said her dp refused - so that leaves her up shit street without a paddle, just cos he doesn't want to face his own mortality?"

Ahem, they could always get married ... And if the DP refuses to make a will AND also refuses to get married, that really should tell her all she needs to know ie he is willing to bury his head in the sand to her and any children's detriment. Is that someone you would choose to stay in a relationship with? I know I wouldn't.

Ivykaty44 · 27/11/2009 10:23

I know - seems silly to be with someone that refuses in anyway to protect your future if the worst happens.

marantha · 27/11/2009 10:36

I tend to believe that the lady's partner is being selfish, but it isn't always easy to get out of a relationship once entrenched in it and where children are involved.

Luckily as regards children, Britain has seen the light and as regards THEIR financial provision the parents' marital status is- rightly- irrelevant regarding how THEY are provided for.

The flatmate issue is also very relevant; a lot of flatmates live like couples only without having a sexual relationship- so a flatmate could in future argue that the only difference between them and a cohabitee in a sexual relationship is the sex aspect and that THEY are being discriminated against in NOT being allowed to inherit their deceased flatmate's estate on grounds of lack of sexual relations.

OP posts:
marantha · 27/11/2009 10:38

I don't really see much difference in the actual living arrangements of young (say below the age of 25) cohabitees and flatmates other than the sexual aspect anyway.

OP posts:
clumsymum · 27/11/2009 10:42

What I don't understand is this. If you want to live with someone, share your bed, your most intimate moments, and (this is MOST important to me) make the commitment of having children together, why would you NOT want to get married to that person?

I get soo cross with those who do the " we can't afford to get married" bit because, as was pointed out above, it costs about £100 (less than a solicitors fee to draw up 2 wills). A marriage and a "wedding" are 2 different things.

The marriage formalises your relationship, gives rights and responsibilities to both sides (which must be advantageous, surely), and if there are children, makes sure that they are more protected in the event that the parents split or one suffers an early demise.

Furthermore, I have to say that when dh and I "fell in love", we really wanted to be married. I don't understand why you wouldn't (unless actually, it isn't a relationship that will endure, in which case you shouldn't, but shouldn't have kids either).

marantha · 27/11/2009 10:42

And people under the age of 25 do die so this scenario is not a red herring.

OP posts:
albinosquirrel · 27/11/2009 10:44

I agree in general- i was horrified at the proposal (which I think has been rejected) to give co-habitees automatic rights - I think there should be a choice. Co-habitee relationships vary in commitment/what they mean - and to give automatic rights ignores this.

However, i don't think the answer is just to say get married- marriage does have wider connotations and isn't the same as a civil partnership - and there may be reasons someone can't get married. And making a will doesn't resolve the problems/differences- for example liability to pay inheritance tax...

marantha · 27/11/2009 10:45

clumsymum, I tend to agree with you, but the reason the proposal/s of making cohabitees akin to married people make me annoyed is because it takes away freedom of choice from individuals- in essence, you will be married like it or not!!

OP posts: