This proposed change to the law was shelved previously as it 'undermined marriage'. It has recently been brought forward again and whereas I fully support this in principle, for semi personalal reasons it has thrown up a lot of questions.
Briefly BIL (unmarried but in long partnership with ExP and a child nearly 16) is due a 50/50 split on the family home where ExP and DD live. He is now renting a room. He wants DD to stay there while at college, paying maintenance, until she is 18 but not beyond (maintenance would continue if nec if she goes to uni). At the moment ExP could in theory buy a 2 bed flat with the equity and a small loan (she is employed). BIL wants a binding legal agreement saying she will sell in 2 years in exchange for not forcing a sale now.
Question is - would a new law as proposed overturn this agreement and give ExP more rights - say if DD had a baby and would therefore be homeless? In divorce the courts can do pretty much as they like (interest of child etc) as compared to current rules re unmarried couples which are very straightforward. Could it possibly be retrospective regarding other properties, business? Is he better off going for a sale of the house now, even though he wants whats best for DD, he could be left with nothing for his old age!