Proposed law regarding cohabitees and intestacy.

[marantha]

AIBU in thinking that the proposal put forward by the Law Commission to make a cohabitee AUTOMATIC next-of-kin* in the event of their partner dying intestate is one step too far and an invasion of people's right to a private life?

• I stress that this is NOT an attack on cohabitees AND that I believe that people should be allowed to leave what they want to whoever they please-cohabitee or not- PROVIDED THEY EXPLICITLY STATE IT IN WRITING.

Wow, you're obviously a little touchy about this.

YABU. How is it an invasion of someones private life?

Assuming most people who are worth a few quid would have explicitly stated in writing ie a Will, why can you see it as a problem?

Nope I see it as a very good thing. I'm not married. I don't want to be married. I'm not religious and feel that marriage is uneccessary. The commitment I've made in taking on my partner, his two children, moving hundreds of miles to be with them is enough. His commitment to me includes opening his arms and welcoming me into life with his children, taking on all my shit, is enough.

We are devoted to each other but as cohabities have no rights. I welcome any changes which benefit couples like us.

I'm also curious as to why the OP seems to be so angry!

I agree with the OP - many people co-habit with no intention of anything else, and why should they; so this raises problems. Think cocklodger, if this helps clarify matters.

And no, claw, many people, no matter what income, do not make wills.

When does a cohabitee become a beneficiary under this proposal?

In Oz, such folk are, inelegantly, called "de factos". What grim nomenclature.

I don´t agree with it.
If co habitees want the same rights as married couples-why can´t they marry?

And why have reindeer and itsmelord projected negative feelings on to the OP when she has been at pains to step away from attacks?

"We are devoted to each other but as cohabities have no rights. I welcome any changes which benefit couples like us. "

I never understand why people in your position don't just pop down to the registry office and get legally married. You don't have to tell anyone, but if the worst should happen, you would probably be better off. No need for a religeous ceremony, a white dress, rings, name changes etc.

Why isnt there a law passed to stipulate that everybody should have a will?

What benefit is there to not having one?

Not only does it say what happens to your estate but it says where you want to be buried etc. Or even if you want to buried or cremated. If people dont know that information it leads to all sorts of family squabbling.

That way we wouldnt need this law, or the Government deciding who gets what.

If the cohabitee automatically gets it, what about kids from a first marriage?

Make a will and then there is not dispute. You can one in Smiths for less than a fiver.

Echt, well perhaps it will make people think twice before letting a cocklodger move in with them now.

Would also say i dont know any couples who live together, just for a bit of cock.

Marriage is a religious institution. I'm not religious. I can commit to my partner without being married. Why do married people think that people can't commit without being married?

Yes we should get around to making wills but havent as yet. If I died before I did, I'd expect everything I own go to him. I'd trust him to deal with my estate fairly.

I´m married because I wanted to be a wife not a partner & because I wanted our children to be legitimate & legally recognised as my husbands without him having to sign a form to say so.

I think that this is a good idea - perhaps alowing people to elect to do this might be fairer; I'm thinking of cases where people have just moved in together, and aren't sure yet that they've met their one-and-only.

Would also prefer it if the co-habitee was also exempt from paying inheritance tax on the estate, in the same way that a spouse is.

"I agree with the OP - many people co-habit with no intention of anything else, and why should they; so this raises problems. Think cocklodger, if this helps clarify matters."

Yup that's me! I have no intention of getting married - what sort of problems does this create? Your cocklodger inference does not help clarify matters, it's just insulting.

Have to say I'm also a little confused about the marriage thing. Marriage no longer is a religious institution no matter of its origins, it's not compulsory to do it in church in a white meringue in front of everyone you've ever known. If you want married rights, then get married surely? 15 minutes in an office gets you all the rights you want. Easy peasy.

I civil marriage is not a religious institution. It is secular to the point of it being illegal to make any religious references during the ceremony.

This wouldn?t affect me directly as I am married but the thing about marriage is it has a clearly defined start (and end).

Co-habiting is a more fluid state and there are many cases of people lying their arses off after a death so they can benefit from the estate.

After 9/11 there were people claiming compensation for the death of their partner and battling with the family of the deceased who were claiming that the relationships had broken down or had never existed. It can be difficult to prove co-habitation when someone else is claiming that you only stayed over 1 night a week and lived with your sister the rest of the time etc.

I am sorry but cannot people see what this would mean in practice?
I do not have ANY MORAL OPINIONS ON THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE AT ALL- I believe that people should have the right to cohabit WITHOUT STATE INTERFERENCE- that is all.
That is my underlying principle in being against this daft -IMO- proposal.

In practice, it would be nightmarish, too.
What EXACTLY is a cohabitee?

Cohabitees vary GREATLY IN LEVELS OF COMMITMENT- who decides who is more serious than others?!

Reading that back it sounds like I have a problem with co-habiting, which I don't of course. I'm just confused by the anti-marriage stance.

BigHairy, you say
'Yes we should get around to making wills but havent as yet. If I died before I did, I'd expect everything I own go to him. I'd trust him to deal with my estate fairly.'

Unfortunately, if you don't leave a will, not only will your partner not be the person to deal with your estate, fairly on unfairly, but he won't get a single penny.

Under intestacy, your property will go to
a) your children
b) your parents
c) your siblings
d) your grandparents
e) your uncles and aunts
f) the government.

Your non-spouse/civil partner DOES NOT GET ANYTHING.

This is why the proposed change of law matters - huge numbers of people think that it's ok, that partner will just get the money/house/aunty's teapot, but they don't.

Make a will!

Message withdrawn

Diddl - "I wanted my children to be legitimate", jeez and I thought we were living in the 21st Century.

For me marriage is outdated. I dont see why I have to give up my valuable time, stand in front of some faceless numpty I;ve never met, spout a load of patronising drivel about what I promise to do, simply to avoid the government taking shed loads of cash off me.

Then, if I decide not to be married any more I;ve got to stand in front of another faceless numpty, reveal personal details of my private life just to have said faceless numpty make decisions for me.

That would be 'non-spouse/non-civil partner' - CPs now count as spouses.

It is an invasion of private life because some people feel it is no business of the state who they are sleeping with under their own roof.

The problem with this change in law is defining the term 'cohabitee'. AFAIK (and someone with more legal knowledge may correct me on this!) there is no one binding 'definition' of this currently in force and it will be years before the legal system can create one. Until then, any two people living in the same accomodation could technically be co-habiting, because that is what they are doing and that is what the term actually means.

The issue is: how do you separate those people who are actually a 'couple' cohabiting from those people who simply live together? And make it provable in court, beyond a person's say so. The status of marriage clears this up nicely, but I agree it has religious overtones (although my marriage was civil only with no religious content at all)and can see why some people have issues with it.

The solution, perhaps, is for the goverment to get rid of Civil Marriages and institute Civil Partnerships across the board, reserving the term Marriage for those people who want a religious definition. This could then allow those who don't to simplify the declaratory process into a simple ten-minute office visit where you just both sign a piece of paper to say you are partners and wish to be treated that way under the law. (This would also have the advantage of removing the gay/straight divide in such issues once and for all, but that's another argument)

But unless there's going to be years of test cases and chaos and attempted fraud and what have you, I think there does have to be some form of formal declaration made. And I'm not sure I understand the issue with making that declaration. I can and do understand not 'marrying' but does the same resistance crop up in terms of having to state, on paper, simply 'We are a couple. We have children. We live together. I would like this person to be my next of Kin.'?

Something like this would resolve complications in the case of a medical emergency as well, btw. If you're not 'married', currently, and your partner does not or is not in a condition to state that you are, then, legally, you are not his/her next of kin. It's unlikely to happen, I know, but if it ever came to it, the law sides with his/her mother/father or adult children over a partner with whom there is no formal relationship. One for those with MIL issues to consider, maybe...

I know you could simply make a Will, but that wouldn't help in the above emergency and, frankly, Wills can be and are challengable in a way that 'marriage' and civil partnership is not.