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.

I do wonder why the state needs to step in when people can't be bothered to either get married or make a will.

Marriage was and is a legal committemnt, therefore the intestacy laws assume that if you bothered to marry then you now have a contract with a person that over rides blood relationships.

Previous to 1920 or so, the intestacy laws were a bit mad and if you were only tenuously related you could claim on an estate, so they revised them to include only the spouse and close relatives.

The main problem now is that marriage is not the norm and so intestacy is now a really bad thing for the unmarried spouse.

But I do think people should have to make wills, rather than the government attempt legislate on relationships to the deceased in this way.

Can we have a link to this proposed law?

Agree with everyone who said it doesn't make sense.

When I was younger I owned a flat and my boyfriend lived with me. We were together a while but it was never going to be forever.

If I had died why should he get my property? It's nonsense.

There are already mechanisms in place.
Marriage - religious or civil ceremony
Make a will etc

Marantha why do you post about this, and only this issue so much?

Quick - tell me how fast I can train to be a family lawyer cos I foresee megabucks to be made if this law comes to pass.

Arf at "the unmarried spouse"

I think the main issue that this is arising is easily answered if you take all the posts saying 'if I died why should my boyfriend inherit stuff?' and turn it round so the boyfriend becomes an unmarried mother of two children. And, currently, the boyfriend, who 'owns' the stuff, refuses to get married, or write her into a will.

It is a feminist issue, in this case.

TSC, is it beyond yours or your partner's ability to make a will ? That's all you need to do to avoid dying intestate.

BigHairyReindeer, if you want the legal benefits of marriage it's simple, get married. It doesn't have to be in church. If you don't want the committment of marriage, which you clearly don't otherwise you would have done it, then accept you don't get the benefit of the legal advantages and security it offers.

I can never understand why people say on one hand that "it's only a bit of paper" and then seem so anti getting it. If it's such a minor deal why not do it ?

Imsonottelling, I am sorry but I do not know how to provide a link here but type in the words "cohabiting inheritance" into a search engine and plenty of hits regarding this issue will come up.
I'm assuming that if a person is logged in here they know how to do this-no sarcasm meant at all by this statement.

WilfSell, You may be right about it being a feminist issue in some respects but I don't view it specifically as such- I see it as an issue regarding human rights of both genders.

This issue of giving cohabitee rights is often dressed up as being an issue of fairness, IMO it is not fair at all as it would give the state carte blanche to interfere into the lives of those who have not "asked for it" by getting married (to be fair, married people HAVE chosen to involve the law in their relationship by the act of marrying).
People have to have- in a civilised society - the right to have a relationship with another adult without legal interference.
This proposal would take away that right.

Of course, by saying that cohabitees should not have these rights, a person can get accused (as thesecondcoming has done to me here) of being old-fashioned and anti-cohabitees. It is NOT the sanctity of marriage that matters to me- it is the sanctity of two people having the right to live together without state interference as regards their sex lives/relationships.

In terms of the law all that's happening is a change to the default position.

Currently, if you do nothing then next of kin will be your blood relatives. If you want this to be different either make a will or get married.

If the law is passed, if you do nothing then next of kin will be your cohabitee. If you want this to be different then make a will.

So, whatever - just either get married or make a will. Everyone should have a will anyway.

doesn't have a will

marantha - as i say above the state ALREADY interferes. Declaring that a co-habitee is not next of kin is not a neutral position. There are ways of setting up whatever a person wants for their personal situation, so I don't see why this is an issue.

The law is being changed to more closely reflect what a majority of people already think it is. This is probaly easier, cheaper and more efficient than trying to get them to pay attention long enough to educate them that this is not currently the case.

ooojimaflip, as many have pointed out here, making a cohabitee automatic next-of-kin has the potential of being open to much abuse/fraud. Frankly, apart from the minority of cohabitees (my gut instinct tells me that the majority do not wish to have this proposed law imposed on them), the only people to benefit will be the legal profession who love complexity and debate.

YANBU. A few people I know with grown up children from first marraiges, who are living with second partners, have deliberately decided not to marry as this would mean their children would lose any automatic inheritance rights. This would take this choice away from them.

oojimaflip, I take issue with you: I honestly do not think that the majority of cohabitees think they are legally tied to one another-seriously, I think they are all too aware that cohabitation is NOT the same as marriage.

Anyway, even if they DID believe that cohabitation made them NOK, is it right to bring in a law that is unjust to suit them?
If the majority of people thought murder was OK- would it be OK to make murder legal to reflect this view? I think not!

I don't see how changeing the default adds any complexity.

The problem with gut intincts is that they are often wrong.

My gut instinct is that the majority of people who co-habit are in some kind of relationship and do consider each other next of kin.

I have no idea if this is the case or not.

Regardless, either way not everyone will be happy with the default. There are ways they can change that.

I don't see that it is any more open to abuse/fraud than the current system.

The only people who will benefit are people who co-habit and wish to be treated as married. The question is are there more of these than peopl who co-habit and do NOT wish to be treated as married.

oojimaflip, It adds a great deal of complexity.
What exactly is a cohabitee?
If in a relationship, how serious does that relationship have to be?
Who decides?
It is absolutely open to abuse/fraud. Other posters here have eloquently expressed this better than myself.

How many people cohabit though and don't have children? I see no reason why people without children should inherit in what might be a casual relationship.

In a case where there are no wills and there are children the childen inherit, which is the right thing.

In a case where a person (male or female) makes a will and refuses to leave their assets to their children, then I would conclude that the person is a right bastard, and clearly does not have the interests of their family at heart. This must be pretty rare though, and I am not convinced that such wide legislation should be brought in which will affect so many people, just to ctach a few right bastards, who are also keen enough in their bastardness to make a will.

In most serious cohabiting relationships the main asset is usually a property which is jointly owned - the co-owner gets the other half on dying. In the event that one partner has refused to allow the other on the deeds then the right bastard thing kicks in again.

Most company pensions etc now include cohabiting partners as beneficiaries, so that is OK.

Financial difficulties often come from not having life insurance etc, which applies just as much to married as cohabiting people.

I am not at all convinced that this is a feminist issue. I think it is a right bastard/sledgehammer to crack a nut issue.

Take two male friends sharing a house and splitting the household bills, should they now be treated as each other's next-of-kin? After all, it is reasonable for one of them to argue in the event of the other's death that they "Lived as a couple" and should inherit.
Realistically, the only difference between them and two people in a relationship sharing a house and splitting the household bills is the sexual element.
The whole issue opens up a can of worms.

Maratha - you can't opt out of being murdered. You can opt out of being/not being next of kin.

Maranatha, you start threads like this about once every three weeks. Surely you have all our thoughts on the issue of marriage, co-habiting and what to call your partner by now!!!

oojimaflip, at the moment assets go to children as next of kin.

I think that is probably a safe option for a lot of people.

I have written some of my assets directly to my children in my will, because I am married. In the event that I die and DH (hopefully) meets someone else and maybe has some more children, I want to ensure that some of my assets are protected for my children, rather than going into a large pot.

The question is would changing the default (from children to partner) really be what the majority of people would want.

I also think it is downright silly in relationships where there are no children. We are all looking at this as parents, but loads of cohabiting people have no children.

"Your honour I sha**ed him for 2 years so I should inherit all his worldly goods regardless of the fact that he has 3 children by his first marriage".
I do not think this is reasonable.

marantha - so make a fucking will.

It worries me because there are people who wish to live together but not be tied together like this. It feels like marriage by stealth.

Also have raised it before, but what about looooong term flatmates? We have friends who are NOT a couple but have lived together for the last 15 years.

Just living together should not be seen as any sort of legal commitment.