Unmarried couples to get same Rights as married couples

[caramelwaffle]

Just heard a news clip on the radio about a Case heard/decided yesterday that will point to giving unmarried couples the same rights as married couples (precedent/case law).

Has anyone heard further?

And yes the decision only affects the property, not their other assets.

Are you suggesting that couples shouldn't allowed to live together unless they are married? That's not going to happen, so cohab couples need new laws to sort them out.

I think this case DOES change everything in terms of ownership of property - it's a change in the law of equity that has happened. (according to the Guardian).

This will help where as so often is the case, women have no rights over the property but have been bringing up children for umpteen years and when the split happens, partner insists on sale and children and wife end up homeless.

But in effect it means that the judges can 'take' equity from the property and 'give' it to the main carer. But what if the main carer has never paid into the property previously, perhaps - as Cogito says, a toyboy moves in and then 5 years later, pays a couple of gas bills, moves out and demands a stake in the equity of the property?

My brain is aching now, I just don't get this at all.

I'll stop filling up this thread with legalese soon but just wanted to say Abbott v Abbott is an commonwealth case where the property was in the name of the man but the court ordered a 50:50 split, so it can and has happened!

realhousewife. NOBODY here is suggesting that at all! Quite the opposite. Just that it would be wise of them to do so if in a committed relationship.

Cohabiting couples cannot have it both ways- they cannot moan that marriage is just a piece of paper then run to the courts to sort things out for them. It's called having their cake and eating it.

And I'll say this: a lot of cohabiting couples have been through the nightmare of divorce and, quite, frankly, don't want the law getting involved should they split again.

Why should those who don't wish to be subject to the courts in the event of a split with their partner be subjected to 'cohabitee rights' because cohabitees realise later that they really should have been married after all?

Frankly, these cohabitees should grow up and get married OR make their own arrangements themselves.

I agree Wamster. Certainty is really important in land law and these new rules are getting too unpredictable. But I do think people need to be more educated on the lack of cohabitee rights! I can't remember the figures off the top of my head but the number of people who think common law marriage exists in England is shocking.

I agree with much of what you say Wamster. These discussions tend to ask whether cohabiting couples should gain the 'rights' of married couples - if that's the question it sounds so archaic and mean-spirited to deny people 'rights' based on marital status. If you turn it round and ask whether cohabiting couples should have the obligations of marriage imposed on them without their consent then the question looks quite different.

The problem though is that most people don't know the law (which is not surprising frankly as it's so complicated) till they come to a crisis by which point it is too late.

It is not right for unmarried couples to have the same rights as married ones. You want the same right, get married ffs.

I also don't see that there is any great need for cohabitee rights, anyway, if my memory is right, only 4% of cohabitations last 10 years or more. The rest either split up or are converted to marriage.

Where is this great need for cohabiting rights? I'm not seeing it, given that the vast majority split up or get wed.

I disagree. I am in a committed relationship of 20 years +. As far as we can do so under the law, my partner and I have made things re ownership of assets, responsibility for children, one acting for the other in the event of incapacity etc clear. I do not wish to be married. The institution has no appeal to me and much that repulses (I am talking on a personal level ... I'm not repulsed by other people doing it!!!)

What I would like is a simple declaration like a civil partnership. Unfortunately I can't get one of those w/o a change of gender. Which strikes me as stupid.

What is not right is for the state to unduly benefit some relationships between private individuals and not others.

I also agree with Wamster. I would be horrified to think we lived in a society whereby you could be deemed to have a legal relationship without having entered into a legal contract (whether marriage or property).

If you want equal rights as married people - get married. If you want equal rights to a jointly owned property - draw up a beneficial joint tenancy in the conveyancing.

I really object to the idea that you could be automatically opted in and I'm glad that's not the case and this ruling hasn't changed that.

I don't see what this has to do with 'unmarried couples' really. Surely the outcome would have likely been the same if they'd not been a couple at all, as it was based on the fact that they jointly owned the property, not on any rights deriving from their relationship?

Not sure how it would be different if they'd been married though. Would that have made a 50-50 split more likely, regardless of who owned/had paid what share?

Frankly, these cohabitees should grow up and get married OR make their own arrangements themselves.

Wamster I agree with you - but some people don't grow up and it ends in disaster. Vulnerable women in particular - they suffer the most and they are often recipients of legal aid. So it makes financial sense to the taxpayer to sort this out as well.

missedith I know there are arguments against marriage, feminist things like how the law didn't recognise marital rape for a long time - but as you're willing to get a civil partnership why does the label matter? "A rose by any other name..." an' all. It just seems kind of cutting off your nose to spite your face not to get married just to send a message. A registry office trip in your jeans, grab witnesses off the street, don't tell anyone is probably the cheapest and easiest way to get important rights.

But in MissEdith's position, she and her partner have sat down and gone through the ownership arrangements for the property, have wills etc. This will give her the same basic 'rights' as someone who is married but doesn't have the ownership arrangements or wills set out to the same degree.

It isn't necessary to be married to have rights, but it is necessary to have made arrangements setting out what belongs to each party if you want it to be clear cut and reasonably straightforward in the case of a split. Marriage does this and so do formal arrangements between the parties.

Where there is a problem is with people who think that because they have been co-habiting for 30 years, they have the same rights as a married couple without the need for any pieces of paper. They don't. And one of them is likely to have a very nasty shock if they split up.

Completely agree with Wamster, and uphill.

Missedith - what do you mean by this What is not right is for the state to unduly benefit some relationships between private individuals and not others.?

There is a contract of law available, very cheaply, to all couples who wish to obtain 'state benefit' as you put it, for their relationship. It is called marriage. Any couple can opt into this if they wish to.

I am struggling here.

Some people reject marriage but want a civil partnership which is erm, the same as marriage.

Leonard Kernott and Patricia Jones separated in 1993 after living together in their property in Thundersley, Essex, for eight years. The supreme court was asked whether the assets should be shared 50/50 or predominantly allocated to the woman, who has paid all of the mortgage for the past 13 years.

So, 8 years together, he moved out in 1995 and made the claim on the property when the children were grown up, in 2006. They first moved in together in 1985. In 26 years she paid 13 years worth of mortgage and maintained the property and brought up the children. Also, he didn't live there for 16 years.

If they were flatmates he would get half and so would she. So it is significant that the judge ruled 90% in her favour.

I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer!

realhousewife. I don't actually think that it makes sense from a tax-paying point of view at all.
I think that the unintended consequence of cohabitee rights would be a break-up of a lot of cohabiting relationships -some of which will be women (and men!) will kick them out before these rights came in.

Let's be realistic; FOUR PERCENT of cohabiting relationships only last a decade or more. Most women work and the house is usually held in joint names with a mortgage split down the middle, anyway. The idea of a house 'partner' bringing up children as a sahm for decades on end without being on mortgage equally with her partner is a myth.

These are the practical arguments against cohabitee rights.
The principled argument is that the government should keep its nose out of people's relationships unless married.
And this may offend a few people here, but sorry you asked for legal intervention in the event of a split if married. Legal intervention in the event of a split if married is fairy nuff.

Didn't they have a child together though, that he had not been contributing for?

May have imagined that, I can't be arsed to read it all again!

Bottom line is that I don't think that people who are cohabiting with no children should have a kind of marriage imposed.

Where children are involved then that changes everything.

Sardine They had two children together that he did not contribute financially to.
She was left to house them, feed them etc I think a lot of the case would have hinged on this.

Would they really have got a 50/50 split if they'd been housemates with joint ownership? Even though she'd paid far more of the mortgage (and therefore surely had paid for a larger share)? I would have thought it would have been split proportionately depending on how much each person had paid?

I do think it was the right decision.

I don't think it generally changes things.

Sorry that comment of mine was because of your post waffle - thanks for clarifying - and I really think in that scenario it was the right one.

If they were housemates they'd probably have a contract which outlines their ownership. If you then pay more than the contract says, well, that's you being a bit of a mug, rather than establishing an interest of more than 50%.

The problem with all these cohabitee cases is that there isn't anything written to refer to so the courts have to guess.

They bought the house as joint tenants i.e the house was owned 50:50 and would usually be split equally.

W put in deposit for the house from the sale of her previous home.
M paid towards household expenses for 8 years
W paid the mortgage from joint funds for 8 years and then on her own for 13 years.
When they split up the couple sold an insurance policy and split the proceeds apparently intending that this would buy M out but did nothing more about severing the joint tenancy.

At the moment, the future value of this case is limited to where there the couple have bought a house together.