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?

I think this ruling corrects what was basically an administration oversight. If Jones had removed him from the deeds or changed the tenancy to tenants in common when he left then I don't think the case would have been brought.

What this case has done is return them both to the position they would have been in, had the paperwork been done properly at the time when Kernott left.

"If you want the rights and protection marriage affords, get married or go to a lawyer and get everything drawn up watertight."

I want the rights and protection that being a single, independent woman and property owner affords!!!!! Blimey.... if I thought some bloke could move in, pay a few quid towards upkeep and then, a few years down the track, try to sue me for a chunk of a property that I've sweated blood to finance for 20 years, I'd have a heart-attack.

Quite agree Cogito. Really dangerous to infer rights without entering any legal contract.

I see, that makes sense uphill

It's odd how people think being 'in a relationship' means they don't have to bother sorting out the legal stuff, getting things in writing etc, that they otherwise would!

I do wonder as well why they waited 13 years before sorting this out, surely it would have been simpler if they'd done it at the time, as there wouldn't be the issue of the 13 years of mortgage payments?

Of course it's possible Kernott wouldn't sign 13 years ago (I haven't read the case details).

Quite, cogito.

My guess is Kernott wouldn't sign 13 years ago, and knew if he tried to force her out with the two children he would have been on a hiding to nothing: as it is, he apparently didn't pay towards his children's upkeep in the intervening years.

@Ephiny - agree fully. I think what's really odd is how marriage... a particularly efficient contract sorting out a host of legal stuff, next of kin issues and property rights etc with nothing more than a couple of witnessed signatures.... has been dismissed by so many seemingly sensible people who claim 'it's just a piece of paper', that it wouldn't change anything and that love is somehow all you need. Tell that to the judge.

I agree with Wamster - it took almost 6 years for DH and me to be ready for marriage. For most of that time we were living together. If there had been a law that would have effectively "married" us by default, we would have split up to prevent it happening. But when we were ready, we married happily and wholeheartedly and are still very happily married nearly 10 years later.

I would have been most pissed off if the decision to marry was taken from us and made by the state.

Marriage is not the same as civil partnership, not to me. And there are things which can't be achieved by seeing a lawyer, spousal pension rights, for example.

It just dicks me off when the state makes life ever-so-simple for people who declare that they're husband and wife and receive a toaster from their relatives and throw a party/take a holiday they'll probably be paying for for the duration of the marriage, when the whole thing could be over and done within a tenth of the time my partner and I have spent together, and yet I'm the person who needs to grow up.

And now I've had a rant I'll shut up and go away. :)

Sorry but what does this change? Have the courts not always looked at the individual financial contributions made by joint owners when non-marital couples buy property?
Been a while since I studied property law, and even then it was Irish law, but hasn't this always been the case?

mayorquimby - depends how long ago you studied property law I suppose :o

It isn't a massive change from Stack v Dowden. Stack was important firstly because of the promotion of constructive trust reasoning rather than resulting trust (with Hale saying constructive trusts should always be used in cohabitation cases) and secondly because she was willing to "impute" not just infer intentions.

Jones v Kernott is important in confirming that the Lords are really rejecting resulting trusts, and also the first HL/Supreme Court case where it has been confirmed that Hale was wrong and intentions cannot be imputed.

Sorry if that was patronising

missedith I don't understand what would be different?

No as I say I'm Irish and involved in criminal law, so while it's not been that long (3/4 years?)since I've studied property law I haven't looked over any English judgments in a long time.
However it was always my understanding that with unmarried couples their share of any jointly owned property would be determined by what their percentage contribution financially was. I was just wondering if England was different given the reaction to this decision as though it was revolutionary (the thread title probably didn't help)

Different cultural connotations, different personal experiences. Put together these things and it means that hell will freeze over before I'm anyone's wife but I could put up with being someone's CP (not that I'm really keen on that either) because it would simplify a lot of things for me and my partner and the kids.

But I wouldn't tell anyone and we'd keep the certificate in a locked drawer. ;)

I understand not liking the term 'wife', however, this is no sensible reason to change the law to allow straight couples to have cp's, is it?

Marriage is rightly seen as more serious as it is an explicit legal declaration of intent. Cohabitation is not. The relationship may be serious but then again it may not.

You can get married and carry on pretty much as before, you don't have to refer to yourself as a 'wife' (and you can warn ask your partner not to!) or change your name or be a Mrs or anything. And the party/holiday/toaster stuff is entirely optional. You just have to say a few words and sign the bit of paper, and other than the two witnesses and the registrar, no one even needs to know unless you choose to tell them.

I do understand about the cultural 'baggage' that comes with marriage, and that these things can affect us in subtle ways. But you really can minimise that a lot, and to me at least it doesn't seem a strong enough reason enough to forego the benefits (for those who would benefit, I mean).

What annoys me most is the argument "Oh we should impose legal relationships on cohabitees because so many people don't understand that they have to protect their rights" Why don't you just try bloody educating them?
If I were Home Secretary I'd do a brief campaign (possibly put pressure on one of the soaps or the tabloids to run a story about tragic homeless bereaved girlfriends) and I'd put a downloadable pack on the government website with basic wills, property agreements, and a full guide to the

Oops, premature post
..full guide to the other things you need to consider.

It's good that this thread hasn't degenerated into a 'marriage is superior' rant. It's more about people having the right not to be seen as married if cohabiting.

I read today that maintenance will have to paid should a relationship break down after 2 years (non married.) Not right at all imo.

I think the idea that only 4% of cohabiting relationships last in the long term is a little out of date. Of course it's always difficult to get proper statistics about relationships with no formal start or end but this seems pretty good. It's more like 25-30% cohabiting after 5 years and 10-12% after 10 years according those figures (look at p13). Given the huge increases in people cohabiting (about 80% of people marrying now have cohabited beforehand according to that paper) then that's a lot of people. I think the Govt did try a publicity campaign a few years ago - I remember a v. patronising website - but I'm not sure it was v. successful.

FAB - were they referring to the Law Commissions proposals? That wasn't for maintenance after 2 years but it was similar. They said that if a couple had kids OR had cohabited for a certain period (at least 2 years) then the law would impose a quasi-divorce regime on them unless they opted out. It was a much more limited law than divorce though, aimed at addressing detriment and only limited to adjusting existing property, not making maintenance payments. It's here

I am very surprised that only 4% of people who cohabit are still cohabiting after 10 years and like catz wonder if the stats are out of date.

OR how do they define cohabiting? If it includes every single person who moves in with someone for a couple of weeks then 4% might be quite reasonable.

"Law firms united yesterday in calling for a cohabitation law.... Proposals include partners be bound to pay maintenance after two years together."

Not quite as I remember but still a bad idea.