Living together - Judge Judy's trenchant advice

[Abitwobblynow]

I, ahem, 'acquired' a book from the Bronx public library, written by Judge Judy, who has been in the family court for 30 years. I am giving it to my teenage Ds and their dorms, in a READ THIS! before you fly off into the world!:

1. If you call this commitment, you should be committed.

2.It amazes me that people who turn faint at the thought of walking down the aisle think nothing of purchasing houses, boats, and cars with live-in lovers. When they try to get satisfaction, they learn just why it's easier to keep things legal. 3.don't kid yourself that is is a commitment until death - especially when it comes to money.

If a child of mine ever opened a bank account with Mr. Almost-Sort-of-Committed, I'd have her committed. Think how much easier it would be if we had laws for people living together. My laws would be:

1. No live-in arrangement shall exceed one year. If after one year there is no date for the wedding, the termporary partnership shall be disbanded.

2.Live-ins shall not purchase any of the following items jointly: house, car, boat, coffee machine, dog.

1. All expenses shall be divided equally, and a precise record kept.
2. The word commitment shall only be used in referring to the upcoming wedding.

When people are in love and have stars in their eyes, they don't want to deal with the messy business of contracts. What really gets messy though is when the relationship folds and one of the partners realises too late that she doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Its' the favourite refrain of gun-shy single people: 'A wedding certificate is just a piece of paper!' Does anyone really believe that? Come on! Don't tell me marriage is meaningless. You wouldn't be protesting so much if it were meaningless.

One of the perks of marriage, as opposed to 'just living together', is the divorce. When you are divorcing, there are courts to help you divide your property and settle disputes. There is no 'Court of People Just Living Together'. It's up to you to be smart. Plan. Keep things simple - not so romantic, but often practical. Walking away from a relationship is never easy. Walking away encumbered with debt, bills, leases, and obligations just prolongs the agony.

It's always about the money.

This is the one thing I have to admit my mother was right on (the foolishness of 'living together' as opposed to him putting his cock on the block).

If my daughter shacked up, I would not be pleased at all.

Simply because, although we are all hurting, bewildered, sad and devastated - he has to give me half. Of everything. For ever (thank you Karen Parlour). Heartbroken and struggling is just too fucking unfair.

Young girls reading: don't 'live together'!

Is this only a problem for women/girls, wobbly?

I love Judge Judy!

Nope. But as a woman, I am only concerned with me and mine. But good point: I will warn ALL my children, not just daughters.

'Living together' is avoidant behaviour. The other thing I will be doing: IF we ever sunk [a large chunk of] money into one of our children's house loans, I would require a contract in writing that this money be returned to me and not be included as joint property. A friend of mine got burned this way - her psycho ex is sitting on assets HER parents paid for.

We must act smart, girls; and we must teach our children to be smart too. Really. When I read the Georgian romantic novels ie Austin: they are very realistic. So we must be too.

Sorry I didn't give the title:

Judge Judy - Keep It Simple Stupid (You're smarter than you look).

Beauty fades - dumb is forever!

Men grow cold as girls grow old
And we all lose our charms in the end,
But square shape or pear shape
These rocks don't their lose shape...

Diamonds are a girl's best friend.

Thanks to Marilyn and the likes of Harry Winston, my jewellery box is full to overflowing

I assume this advice only works if your daughter is the lower earner? Because otherwise marriage would be a really stupid idea (advise your sons of the opposite maybe?). I'm the higher earner and this kind of stuff gives me the sweats - thank god I don't live on the uk so if the worst happens I would not be giving away half of my salary for ever and ever.

Izzy - Ha!

Good point, Pony. This is a small point of law in the UK: if the spouse can prove that their support and encouragement (ie paying for spouse college, supporting them through training) made the difference, then 50% of all future earnings belong to them. This legal precedent was set by a WAG, who could prove that her footballer husband was only where he was, because of her support and belief in him.

But I think that even now it is the woman who tends to be handicapped by children - the one male I know who is the main carer (wife MH issues) has been as fucked as the rest of us regarding career, he has ALL the single parent probs the rest of us have - so she is best protected by a contract ie marriage.

I only have boys and I have warned mine, marriage is a financial agreement. Think very carefully when going into it. Is she really the woman you want to give half of everything you earn in the end?

I'll go get married then shall I?

Even though I have no desire to be married, never have done and more than likely never will have?

I am not avoiding anything, I honestly and truly do not see the point of marriage (not trying to insult others, just giving my opinion).

If OH and I seperate, I will be fine. The house is in my name only, I have my own bank account, CB etc are paid to me.

I m not almost sort-of commited, I AM commited but don't need marriage to prove it

I think that's a load of shite tbh.

Unless finance is your leading force.

It says nothing other than protect your pocket really. Is that what marriage is about?

You could take her advice and still have a fucked up marriage that ends in divorce, but you'd be fine cos you'll get half?

How mercenary.

Also the idea that a man isn't committed to you unless he marries you? Oh please! Read the relationships board, plenty of men marry yet never commit....oh maybe financially they do and that's what matters right?

Big load of balls IMO

I thank my lucky stars I didn't marry my EX, our split after 15 yrs and 3 DCs would have been much harder from a practical point of view had we been married.

What I would agree with is that relationships are financial as well as emotional. It is necessary to set aside emotion in order to deal practically with the financial aspects of both being in and ending a relationship (including the end of it via the death of one of the partners).

There are different ways of achieving this. 'Not talking about it' is not one way of achieving this. On a completely practical level, marriage shortcuts some of the additional legal safeguards which can be put in place to offer the same degree of protection in the case of a separation or death.

Austen's novels are not romantic. The picture she paints of marriage is not one where security or happiness has been achieved just because neither partner can actually leave.

You know what, I didn't realise marriage conferred equal & joint ownership. I really didn't. My feeble solicitor didn't tell me, either. Perhaps she assumed everyone knew!

My first long-term relationship was living together. We had everything nailed down contractually. The break-up was fairer, and less financially painful, than my subsequent divorces. I don't see anything wrong with a sensible, legally binding, cohabitation agreement.

I do agree with Judge Judy, all the same. Bless her bossy arse :)

"The other thing I will be doing: IF we ever sunk [a large chunk of] money into one of our children's house loans, I would require a contract in writing that this money be returned to me and not be included as joint property. A friend of mine got burned this way - her psycho ex is sitting on assets HER parents paid for." But that contract would become meaningless if she married the psycho ex since all assets then become joint

oh, xpost, tribpot. Yes, what you said.

SwedishEdith all assets held by the spouses become joint, yes. But the parents could make a financial contribution to the property without giving it to their child. Eg if they put up 20% of the price as a deposit, rather than giving it as a gift they could hold 20% of the home as tenants in common. It would belong to them, not to either of the spouses. So it wouldn't be an asset of the marriage, any more than eg the parents own home would be.

Obviously lots of people don't do it this way though!

I love J Judy, didn't know she had written a book. Amazon, here I come.

Amber leaf "I think that's a load of shite tbh. Unless finance is your leading force."

is what I think is a load of shite. You think life consists of wafting along on the breeze of true love, relying on other people to behave nicely on the dread day (may it never happen, but reality being what it is it happens a hell of a lot) the shit hits the fan?
You think that when women do the biological thing they are designed to do - ie, have children; their career structure and earning power isn't severely diminished; and at THAT time they become dependent on men?

No? Carry on in la la land then. Alternatively, read the not a few posts that sadly pop up regularly where women are stuck at home with small children and he is being a twat, and she slowly reveals that he is her 'partner', has all the money and magically the house is in his name. Ah, the breeze of true love.

Beauty fades, but dumb is forever. Whatever the economic and educational advances of capitalism, it is a reality that women will ALWAYS be at an economic advantage to men, especially once they have children, with only a few exceptions.

When people lose trust they get defensive. And THAT is the time, a LEGAL CONTRACT protects you.

What a load of old toot. I lived with my husband for four years before we bothered to get married, and we acquired a lot more than a coffee machine and a dog. I wouldnt have bought a house with him while unmarried (still havent actually, thank god, we would have lost a ruddy fortune!). It was a good practise run before we got married, and we've been married 15 years now. I wouldnt have had a baby while not married though, but thats just me. I think if you do have children before marriage though, you need to financially protect yourself.

I love JJ but her problem is that she sees couples who are breaking up, and so her viewpoints are skewed to the practicality of law. She usually doesnt see the masses of people living happily together.

She gives out some sound advice but usuually it is to people for whom the advice has come too late!

Also, if you follow JJ's advice, it is men who have more to fear usually, as they are usually the main breadwinners, paying into the house etc. They usually have more to lose financially if their relationship breaks down, and if they start up a new relationship.

The women on JJ are usually ones who have given loans of money to their partners.

I think she is great by the way, a really satisfying way to spend half an hour.

Oh yes, I love JJ too.

its not a load of old toot though. Your comment

"I wouldnt have bought a house with him while unmarried (still havent actually, thank god, we would have lost a ruddy fortune!)."

is the whole point. People do. Just because you are in love, doesn't mean you mustn't be realistic.
How many times have you rented a car, only to hear, 'we don't need to bother about this, it's just a piece of paper'. Ridiculous! It is just a piece of paper, until things go wrong, or until you want to assert a need which diametrically opposes what the other wants. Then you are protected.

ITS CALLED REALITY!

JJ? Its my ironing time!

Well said tribpot. Good points

Abitwobblynow, sorry I should have been more clear. It was the whole bit about not living together for more than a year, not using the word commitment etc that I am saying is a load of shite. I certainly had zero interest in marrying after living with my then boyfriend for only a year, mainly because I was only 23 at the time. And we certainly were committed to each other (emotionally, if not financially)! And what does 'Living together is avoideant' mean? I wasn't avoiding anything, I just had no interest in marriage that young! I certainly do not think marriage is just a piece of paper, which is why I didnt marry until I was well and truly ready (aged 27, after living with dh for 4 1/2 years). So that's why it is a load of old toot.