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.

[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!?

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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...

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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