Unmarried couple:legal rights

[Ephiny]

First of all, apologies if this has been asked before many times before!

DP and I have been together about 10 years, lived together about 5. The house/mortgage is all in his name because at the time we got it I had no savings to put towards a deposit and wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage as I had no regular income (I was a full-time student at the time). Since we moved in I've paid half of the mortgage and all other costs like bills, council tax, insurance etc - I give him the money every month and he pays everything as it's all in his name. We don't have any agreement in writing, this is just what we informally agreed to do.

This works fine, but the question is what would happen if we were to split up, or if he were to die - i.e. do I have any legal rights to any share of the house? I think I probably don't, he thinks maybe I do as we're living together 'as though we're married' and I can prove that I've given him regular payments every month which correspond to half his mortgage payments. But Ithink I have fewer rights even than a tenant in a rental property (as there's no contract or written agreement), and if he decided to kick me out and change the locks tomorrow (he wouldn't, but hypothetically!) there would be nothing I could do about it. I know there's no such thing as common-law marriage.

Do I need to make sure we get this all written down and official? Or should we just get married?

Waste of time and resources if you ask me. Get married if you want to make the committment. Same as a CP in legal effect. What an utterly turgid waste of everybody's time that European court case is - for fuck's sake - all over the name. So what if one is called CP and the other a marriage? Get over it.

(Rant over - calms down....)

I agree that marriage and CP are effectively the same in legal effect. To be honest, the way I see it is that all the other things like romance, 'baggage' associated with marriage exists in the heads of those who marry.
All it actually is in reality is a declaration to the state that the couple wish to be viewed as such from a financial and legal perspective.

BUT... other people do not see it like this; they just don't.
So perhaps a civil partnership may be a good idea for them.

People need to be warned, though: even if they are a reluctant to marry because of perceived sexism of marriage blah blah, their partner may be fully aware (like Resolution and myself) that marriage is, at heart, a legal thing and the REAL reason that they won't marry is that they do not wish to be in a position where they are legally tied so most definitely WON'T civil partnership them, either!

Only works if BOTH partners are equally principled about the marriage/civil partnership thing and I am most definitely of the opinion that 100% of men will marry their partners if in love with them and wishing to spend rest of lives with them.
I mean why wouldn't they?

Sorry to butt in but I am wondering;

DP and I have one child together. We live in his house and since I moved in about three years ago I have contributed each month in the form of a cheque to him so I have records.

His death in service benefit would come to me and we have made wills.

Other than entitlement to widowed parent's allowance is there anything else that we would gain legally from marriage? I think we are getting to the point where we will probably do it but perhaps we just need a little push :)

From reading this though I would be in trouble housewise if we split (no plans but you never know what might happen) as things stand now, we have tried to cover what ifs in the event of death but should probably just get married...

glovesoflove. I think the basic principle is that cohabitation is not recognised by legal system in UK.
(I think this is a good thing myself as I would not wish to be legally tied to someone because of cohabitation- if I wished that, I'd marry-that's what marriage is for).

Cohabitees are just two people who live under the same roof (they may love each other dearly but that is what the law sees them as being).
So I suppose that unless a couple have gone out of their way to make their own arrangements legally regarding certain things- for example, naming partner as service benefit beneficiary as you've done here, in areas where they've failed to make any explicit arrangements they'll just be seen as unrelated people.

Gloves - merely the fact that you pay a regular cheque would not gain you an interest in the house in the event of a separation. what is it intended to cover, and have you agreed that it is buying you an interest in the house? Most people don't talk abput these things, or if they do, they don't formally record the agreement or understanding, which makes things difficult to prove on a separation.

As marantha says, marriage creates legal ties between the two of you as people. All that you have without marriage is a potential property dispute, with no personal rights and obligations between you both.

Put the mortgage on both names, or get married. If you divorce or he dies, you have NO rights over the house.

Sure you can try to claim part of the house by proving you contributed to the payment, but the cost of taking that to court may end up being far more expensive than just letting go of any claim on the house.

And you are right, you have fewer rights than a tenant in a rental property, he can kick you out at any time. The tenant has a contract that protects him/her

if you're not married and your dp dies, you don't get widowed parents' allowance. if he's paid his NI in full, that's about £400 a month. It makes a big difference if you've been pole-axed by grief and are having to raise children alone.

if you're not married and you're pregnant and your partner dies, you will not automatically be able to put his name on your child's birth certificate

if your dp suddenly falls for someone else, and chucks you out, you have no claim over the house if it is his.

if you have given up work or reduced your hours and your earning power, to bring up children, you should think very seriously about marriage.

Another benefit of marriage is that if you do own a house together it can be transferred on death of one to the other without being liable for inheritance tax, which usually means having to sell the house.

And being married makes you next of kin, so for example if your DP died and had wished his organs to be donated, his family could overrule this (next of kin get final say even if you're on the organ donor register), whereas if you're married you get to decide.

If you still don't want to get married (£60 down the registry office), get a will made by a solicitor,but that will probably be more expensive.

A will should set you back £2-300. Last time I looked even the stingiest wedding cost more than that, unless you're going to turn up in your jeans and celebrate with a drink of water.

Sorry, don't want to be picky notcitrus, but family, next of kin or not, do not get to overrule a person's wishes if they wanted to donate their organs and have clearly given their permission before death (through carrying donor card for instance).

Also think it's worth pointing out that 'next of kin' carries no legal weight in terms of consent/refusal for medical treatment.

However, a will won't get a roof for you and your children if you and your partner split.

Maelstrom, It might do. I do believe that a court can order that main carer of children and child stay in children's home until children reaches 18 even if main carer has made absolutely no financial contribution to home, however, this right of residency effectively ends when children 'come of age' and main carer has to leave the house then (?)

Also, the property remains the owner's and does not belong at all to main carer.

My recollection of this is hazy and I do not know if it actually happens in real life.

I don't think that is the case Marantha. The court will put the welfare of the children first, but to be honest, I don't think it will extend to allow for an unmarried partner to stay in a house that is not in her name.

You can get a Mesher Order (Uncommon but still exist) that allows for the house not to be sold until the child is 16, and for agreement until later, but these orders are applied to divorce cases where there is, obviously, a "marriage contract" between the parents.

resolution - if i were to be as effusive about my dislike of marriage as you are about cp i would offend many

get over yourself with your empty vitriol

Next of kin carries weight in medical terms, if they are deciding whether to resucitate your partner or not, and you are not married, the next of kin would be in charge of the decision not you (if no marriage then it would be the parents, children or siblings, but not the partner unless there is nobody else from that list). This is one of the reasons why so many homosexual couples have fought to be able to have their relationships recognised in a form of legal contract.

PaulaYates - I am completely with resolution on this. Apart from a few minor technical details there is no difference between a civil partnership and a marriage. Perhaps you would care to explain what you perceive the difference to be.

OP, just on resolutions last point on property dispute. I have just acted in an extremely difficult and deeply moving property dispute between a lady and the executors of her deceased long term partner (together over 20 years).

Had the couple addressed their wishes about the property and declared those wishes in a declaration of trust there would have been nothing to contest. Of course no two cases are the same - but please may I urge you to and take legal advice to organise your joint affairs that will to reflect your intentions and wishes, not just for what happens after death with your wills, but during your lifetime with property and possessions. There will be a cost, but it will be worth it, whatever it is.

I was very troubled by the actions of the parties in my case and also by the effect of the final court order. It could have been so easily avoided

phr47 there are huge huge intrinsic differences.

Marantha/Maelstrom - under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 the court can settle property on the carer of the child until the child reaches maturity. Marantha is corect.

Paula Yates - not sure where you get the idea that I'm anti-CP. Far from it in fact. They are in law no different to marriage save for the name. You say there are huge intrinsic differences, but you seem unable to explain what these huge differences are. I think that says it all really.

Look - you either want to have a relationship from which either of you can walk away whenever you wish, or one in which legal ties and obligations are created. If the latter, and you are straight, you get married. If gay, you enter into a CP.

Paula - That statement says absolutely nothing. Indeed, in law it is complete rubbish. There are a few minimal technical differences but that is it. There may be, for example, religious connotations in the term "marriage" in your mind, but legally the term has no religious connotations whatsoever.

But Resolution, how often does that happen? I understand you need to fight hard to get it even when you are married, it is far from being an automatic right.

It happens all the time Maelstrom, I can assure you. If an unmarried couple split up, they only have one house, and the mother can't rehouse herself and the children, she'll often/usually get the house settled on her, but it would have to be sold and the proceeds divided when the children reach 18.

See the attached article - old but still relevant.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1807

I think that what has been forgotten in society at large is that marriage exists for a purpose. Those who toss it aside as just being a'piece of paper' and/or not 'needing it to love one another' and/or not being religious are missing the point. The point being to join a couple together in legal/financial matters.

I get very irritated by the call for cohabitee rights/ or calls for civil partnerships for heterosexuals.
The former makes me want to shout 'Just get married!' and annoys me because I do not wish to be legally joined to another adult purely because of cohabitation. It also gives state more power over people's lives; for they will decide if couple are 'serious' or not. Far, far better for the couple to decide the seriousness of their relationship themselves by leaving them choice of marriage.
The civil partnerships idea is not so bad as it least the onus would still be on the couple to make an explicit declaration.
Although I do think a lot of women will be disappointed when they realise that their partner still won't form CP because, at heart, their partner didn't wish to marry them because they didn't want to be legally tied and that it had s** all to do with not needing piece of paper etc etc.

Resolution Thank you. One point, though, if the main carer lives in house and makes no contribution to mortgage at all, is it not a case that she has no rights at all to house when asked to leave?
Also, if house is already paid off, surely she leaves the house with no rights to it at all when children reach adulthood?
Also, if house still being paid for by man alone, can he not simply refuse to pay mortgage?

Maelstrom, I'm sorry, that's not true about resuscitation. They may ask the family for their opinions on whether or not to carry on with attempting to resuscitate, but if the individual is unconscious the decision legally lies with the treating doctor who must act in what they believe is the patient's best interests.

Marantha

Even if she pays towards the mortgage she is unlikely to acquire an interest in the house. Under the Children Act the court can order that one parent settle assets on the other to provide for their child. This can include maintenance to pay a mortgage, though in the usual case there won't be enough income to pay more than CSA rates (remember the father has to provide himself with a home, and one which the child can stay at) so the mother will have to demonstrate to the court that she has the wherewithall to pay the mortgage. Usually this will be just the interest, though if she repays capital she'll get that back. This payment of the mortgage will not earn her an interest in the property over and above what capital she pays off.