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.

thesecondcoming, Don't you get it by now- I do not give a monkey's about the sanctity of marriage!

You can refuse an inheritance though you know...Dp and I are planning to wed but are slackers (9yr together 2 kids)
Also he can choose to leave his wordly goods to me and we have wills stating this also relating to custody of our 2 kids and my eldest from a previous relationship.
However I am told by folks that it is possible a will leaving worldy goods to a co habitor can be challenged by relatives.
So in those cases it would be good for some legal protection for those that choose and state yet have wills challenged.

And what about co habitors who have kids from another marriage, the co habitor gets everything and their own kids get nothing?

I think to shore up those who state their intent is fine, but an automatic one is a step too far

Message withdrawn

Trifle

Yes,we are in the 21st century.
But I don´t make the law that says children of unmarried couples are not automatically recognised as his and that the unmarried father does not automatically have parental rights.

Agree with ginnybag. I don't care whether people marry or live together or whatever, but if you are committed to each other please do go to sit before some numpty solicitor and get a will settled properly. If you don't want to get married it is the only way at the moment you can control who your money goes to. (You should still get a will even if you are married though - doesn't let you off).

There really are quite a few cases every year of one partner dying and the other being left with absolutely nothing because 'common law marriage' doesn't exist and if it did, when would you count as being married - date of moving in? first DC?

I don't really have any wordly goods.

Except that the ones I do have are all 'nominated' to him or the kids as beneficiaries anyway, precisely because we're not married (pension benefit and death in service benefit, joint mortgage with him etc)

I know we should still make a will, particularly to specify what happens to the kids if we were both to die, but I'm not sure my family will be arguing too much about who gets to keep my single sock collection.

Would be interested to see a link re the remit of proposed law. On the face of it it seems to make little sense.

How do you define cohabiting, can you "opt out", what safeguards are in place etc etc.

Many people live with partners with no intention or wish to have the "same rights" as a married couple.

I would imagine 99% of problems arising from not having those rights could be resolved by adequate financial planning (making sure your cohabitee is named as beneficiary on you life insurance) and a will.

In fact why a parent would fail to prioritise the making of a will is beyond me: it is stupid.

oooh yes, I forgot the life insurance. But yes, that names him then kids as the beneficiary also.

thesecondcoming, EXACTLY!! IT IS NO BUSINESS OF MINE WHAT LEVEL OF COMMITMENT COHABITEES HAVE. NOR IS IT ANY BUSINESS OF THE STATE BUT YOU SEEM QUITE HAPPY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE THE LEVEL OF COMMITMENT FOR YOU!!

I really hope this doesn't come into effect before my brothers and I can persuade my Dad to write a will

My dad and his partner live in what was my mum and dads house that they worked hard for for years. Dads partner sold up her property here and bought abroad, making my dad sign to say it is nothing to do with him. He wants everything to go to us (my brothers and I) but doesn't want to write a will as he would then feel guilty about his partner!

If this comes into effect my mums, dads and nans (he owns a 3rd of her house) posessions and money will pass onto Dads partner and her children.

Stop shouting!

I apologise for shouting but I am offended by the statement that the level of commitment of cohabitees has got nothing to do with me because:

a, I agree 100% with it- that is why I am so against state interference in the arena of cohabitation.

b, Why exactly does the person who made this statement think that perhaps I am not a cohabitee myself? Maybe I am and this proposal has everything to do with me.

diddl unmarried fathers now have equal rights to married fathers if they appear on the birth certificate. Fathers of children born before the law change or who aren't on the birth certificate can also apply for parental responsibility and are unlikely to be refused it.

I am a co-habitor, but I disagree with this proposal. I think it would be too hard to determine if a couple were in a relationship, how serious it was, how long it had lasted etc. I do like ginnybag's idea about Civil Partnerships being extended to straight couples and marriages being for religious ceremonies, personally I would prefer that.

Unmarried couples who want to be treated as married couples - just get married already.

There is no point extending Civil Partnerships to straight couples - they are already identical. The difference in names is just a sop to those who would like marriage to be a religous institution. It is not - it is a legal one.

If you want to call it something else, I really don't care, but I don't think anyone else should be inconvenienced by an attitide that is as irrational as any religous desire to restrict it.

I do agree with Marantha in that it shouldn't be automatic - as cohabitation could encompass many things from flat share through living as a couple etc - and not just for inheritance- also there was all that talk a while back about giving cohabiting couples various rights if the couple split up.
But the big problem is that if you don't make it automatic then people actually have to do something - whether it is write a declaration/write a will etc and the huge amount of intestacy is evidence that people don't do this- so you would still have the problem that some people would inadvertantly exclude their partner (esp as many people still believe that common-law rights exist)

Golly why has this turned into such a marriage/religious debate? Typical mumsnet rants as usual. Everyone should just read ginny's post which IMO makes complete sense although also agree with ooojima. I agree there are varying levels of cohabitees and it just makes more sense for those cohabitees who consider themselves commmitted enough to inherit to sign something.

YesAllidon
But they cannot register without the mother´s permission?

Or has this changed.
This is what I mean that they are not automatically recognised as the father.

I suppose it comes down to how much should you decide for yourself or how much should the state decide?

It does seem wrong/odd that couples who have been together for many years can´t make decisions in the event of an accident for example.

Good posts ginny and oojima. You said it.

I agree with OP. There are lots of reasons people live together. For example, I lived with my boyfriend during uni. We were both far away from home and it saved on rent. We weren't making a commitment. I did that when I married my husband in a very small, non-religious ceremony, earlier this year. There was a big difference between these two relationships. I would have been very upset to think of my ex-boyfriend as next of kin. Whereas, with my husband, I wanted him to have that status. Hence the marriage.

i think that co-inhabiting couples should have the option to register as next of kin and have the same rights as married couples do, but i don't think it should be automatic.
i wouldn't mind going down the registry office and signing a agreement that my partner, in the event of mine/his death I/he would be treated the same as husband/wife, in regards to will, insurance policy, house etc. but i feel very strongly against marriage in my situation.
my partner married his wife shortly before her death, because that was what they wanted and it was her dying wish. since then we have had to lovely girls and live together just like man and wife. but i don't want to marry (he has asked) as it was her dying wish and i dont want to take it away from her.
we have made wills in the knowing that they could be problems i.e. her family/my partners family/my family going against them. even though i get along very well with her family.
on the other hand, i have lived with a few boyfriends before and even then, if i died i wouldn't have wanted them to be next of kin.

So Hannahvn - don't your wills name you as next of kin? What would be the advantage in changing the law?

Sometimes it seems to me that some (I must stress not ALL)want to have their cake and eat it: they don't see why they need to stand in front of some "numpty" to declare their devotion YET when relationship breaks up/partner dies they expect the law/state to mother them and treat them as if they were married. The nerve of some people never ceases to amaze me.
These cohabitees need to be told that they can't have it both ways.

you want legal protection

GET MARRIED!

Agree FH