Touchy subject for a lot of people - co-habiting and not marrying - the pitfalls.

[Ruprekt]

OK, so many of you may say that I have no experience first hand of this but here is a story I heard from my friend recently.

She and partner had their own business.
Together they had 4 children who are now 12, 14 and twins 18.
Long term relationship.
Very happy.
Huge huge Victorian house. Lived in, scruffy, lovely, happy home. When I visited she would say 'I am not going to apologise for the mess as that would make you think I am going to tidy it and I am not!'

When I first met her and got friendly and found out she was not married to partner we had a big chat about how they had just never got round to it and because of things I had read about on MN I said that it might be good to simply get married because of wills and money and rights over children etc

She said she was not bothered about that sort of thing and so I kept quiet. None of my business.

Except that on Sunday, I bumped into her and she and partner have split, but living in same house. She has lost her job as she worked with him. He wants her out of the house and to give her nothing AS EVERYTHING IS IN HIS NAME!!

He is being a git but she did not cover herself financially. She now needs at the age of 47, a new big career to fund her family!

I am gutted for her but at the same time...........ahh, still none of my business.

Anyhoo, this was just a think on ladies. Protect yourself and get things in writing.



Sorry if this offends.

[mercibucket]

As you see on so many threads,
People think you have rights as a couple living together
People don't think it will happen to them

Look at steig larson. Estranged from family, living with partner for many years, dies, all the money from his books goes to his parents as next of kin.

Wills are needed if not married,and all assets in joint names. That still is not as good as marriage eg pensions are not included

[PoshPaula]

Totally agree with independentfriend - there are other measures you can put into place.

And Apocalypto has it so right. The fact is that the knowledge that marriage can mean heavy financial obligations for the man (or main bread-winner) in the event of a split is what makes some men so unwilling to enter into it; regardless of children, in my experience.

[independentfriend]

This isn't about cohabiting and not marrying, it's about cohabiting, without having thought through financial matters properly. There are other ways to protect yourself than marriage if you're cohabiting.

[SirSugar]

I was married and not on the house deeds, no joint accounts and business I helped run all in his name (stupid I know).

My H died and left no will so I was only entitled to the first £250,000 of assets, the rest gets tied up in trust for DCs.

The estate came in under the limit with just equity in the property. Had H taken insurance to pay off mortgage, which he didn't, I would have been embroilled in a court battle to prove I owned half the house despite us moving into it together after we were married 12 years before. I had been supporting myself all that time through my own job and giving him cash towards house.

The stupidity of my situation could have bit me on the arse - my only defense is that H was abusive, difficult to pin down and I took the path of least resistance to keep the peace (also, didn't have collective wisdom of MN)

[Thumbwitch]

It's also about being next of kin if one partner is seriously ill - if unmarried, and no legal paperwork in place, then the partner's blood family is next of kin and can exclude the partner if they so wish!

Just so many things that need to be considered when choosing not to marry, that are "taken care of" when you get married.

[ChessieFL]

it's not just about splitting up - unmarried couples can also be less protected if one partner dies. some pension schemes won't pay spouse's pensions to unmarried partners, and if there is no will assets are passed to family rather than the partner.

[Apocalypto]

5 minutes, 2 witnesses and she would have been able to take him to the cleaners.

Which obviously occurred to him some time ago.

[Apocalypto]

just seemed to me that if she had been married (or sorted more stuff out legally!) she would have been entitled to more.

And he to less, so it's zero sum. He has looked after his interests, she hasn't looked after hers.

I only have daughters, so I don't have to consider what advice I'd actually give sons, but it seems to me broadly that women shouldn't have children unless they are married, and men shouldn't marry other than to substantially wealthier women. This has the potential to lead to a lot of Mexican standoffs of course.

AIUI OP your friend's case is not that hopeless. He has to maintain the children and house them if necessary and this may extend to housing her too. She really does need a decent family lawyer.

[ethelb]

While I am very sorry for your friend OP and think her partner is a massive shit (who the fuck would do that to the parent of their children) i have to ask why she didnt get married? I understand if they were anti marriage, but surely they would have to take the rough with the smooth if that is the case.

I guess I am less naive as my god mother lost the father of her two toddlers to a sudden and shocking death when they hadnt got round to getting married. The fallout was messy.

My partner and I have the arrangements we have not only to protect ourselves but each other. They will obviously change uf we get married or have children. We also dont have much to fight over being recent grads

[Ruprekt]

Yes she was foolish not to have things put into her name.

And she gave up her own career to bring up their 4 children. She put time and effort into their business and now has nothing.

If she had been married, it would have been a hell of lot easier to get half of it all but I doubt she will.

Like Cogito says, 5 minutes, 2 witnesses and she would have been able to take him to the cleaners. Not sure what she can do now.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

A registry office wedding is the most simple, short-lived thing going. You only need a witness each, it costs buttons and takes five minutes. It already is civil partnership for heterosexuals...

[ChunkyPickle]

It doesn't even have to be because of divorce. I knew a couple who were very happy together, but both decided not to get married because of previous unhappy divorces.

Unfortunately, her partner died, and the house they were living in (which had belonged to him) went to his daughter, leaving her to start over.

I almost think that we need a way to have a super simple, legal marriage that doesn't involve monkeying about down at the registry office for these situations. Civil Partnerships for heterosexuals.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

She should have but she trusted him. I'm assuming, of course, that you trust your partner... :) ... but there must be something in either your background or experience that makes you rather less naive than she was.

[ethelb]

@cognito i didnt suggest she should have married him i suggested she should have had her name on the property and business.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

She let it happen presumably because she trusted him and thought they'd be together for life. No-one actually needs a wedding ring in order to behave decently towards their former partner and, as many people find out to their cost, a wedding ring doesn't prevent people from behaving like shits either. Whatever's gone wrong in the relationship he's clearly out to make her suffer. Nasty...

[ethelb]

Th co-habiting is a bit of a misnomer tbh.

She should never have allowed it all to be in his name. I co-habit and everything that is mine is in my name and everything that is in his is in his name. We share sensible things obviously, but we don't have everythign in one of our names.

Why on earth did she let that happen!?

[cestlavielife]

he is obliged to provide for the children. including housing them.

that might mean she and dc stay in the house til they older. but she neds advice from a solicitor.

but then - that wont solve her long term issues. she does need to find new job and her own funds...

many poeple cohabit dont marry but do make sure to get joint ownership and like poster above that has its own issues when you split but at least you get a share of the equity...

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

She'll fight it for her children. It would take a really stupid not to say selfish man to chuck out their children's mother without a penny and think that he could still look those kids (and their wider family) in the eye. Legally she may face limitations, financially she may end up worse off, but morally she has the high ground and he just looks like a shit...

[Ruprekt]

I didnt mean to offend anyone.

Like I said, or should have said, I am not an expert. Just seemed to me that if she had been married (or sorted more stuff out legally!) she would have been entitled to more.

She should have protected herself. There is no way he is going to walk away from HIS house which is in his name. She will have to leave as she literally has nothing.

Am not sure if she will have the strength to fight it through the courts.

[OneMoreChap]

As said earlier, it's not the fact that she's not married, but that their arrangements weren't sorted out.

Because of the way the law works, marriage is an easy way to secure certain legal rights. It also exposes assets, so if there's asymmetry in what's brought to the marriage, one partner may be exposed. But at least talk about it.

I'm sorry she's got the rough end of the stick, but she definitely needs some legal advice. Prior would have been better.

[fuckadoodlepoopoo]

Boombang. That's awful! What a cunt!

[CarlingBlackMabel]

If you are not married make sure the house is owned as 'joint tennants', or if you are contributing a bigger wodge of the equity, own it as 'tennants in common' with a solicitor's agreement stating what proportion you own.

There are no particular benefits to being married IF you have your own independent income, own your property as tennants in common, and have wills abou the children, pensions payments, any joint assets etc.

If you are a sahm who has given up work then I would say marriage is to your benefit. But the OPs friend was working in the business - she laid herself wide open by not having her name on the house or as a stakeholder in the business. But if she can show consistent contributions to the mortgage or significant maintenance and relairs she maight be able to reclaim some from the house. After selling her soul to the lawyers.

But this is about the pitfalls of not looking out for your interests, not of not getting married.

And really, feeling anything but sorry on her behalf is rather unpleasant and smug.

[meditrina]

If you are not married, you can only "protect your contribution" by having assets in your name (or joint names). If you decide to give your assets to another person, without the underpinning legal status conferred by marriage, then the asset is lost to you at that point. Ditto if you decide to work as an unpaid volunteer or for below the market rate.

OP: you say she was sacked? The boss cannot sack someone out of hand because he is no longer sleeping with her. She may be able to secure some redress through a Tribunal on that one.

[PoshPaula]

And it's not about claiming 'from him' in the event of a split - it's about protecting your contribution, and what you may have brought to the partnership. Especially if you have met a bit later on in life and perhaps already have children and/or properties of your own.

[Phineyj]

Horror not hrrir!