No rights because i'm not married

[SweetPea2017]

I've been with my (now ex Partner) for 11 years, he owns the house. Does anyone know what rights I have as we never married? he kept saying we would, he refused for me to pay towards mortgage and was abusive if I mentioned been added to property.

Under the NZ system that really does force you into an all or nothing commitment, that will make some people very vulnerable.

I hope people are educated there to not move in with anyone unless they are willing to risk losing their home if it goes wrong.

I feel for the OP too, given the circumstances in which she has grown up and lived.

I'm often surprised at how many people don't know that long term cohabitation doesn't confer the same legal rights as marriage. I thought it was well-known but then realise that this crucial information has passed many people by; a family member who has cohabited for over a decade has only just woken up to this. This briefing is useful.

Who said anything about cohabites being given half the value of a property?

What I'd want to see is 'bastard' children (who from this thread still seem to be seen as 'lesser') being given the same rights as their 'legitimate' counterparts.
Eg the right not to be summarily evicted from their homes, court ordered maintenance etc

People can choose to cohabit and not have the rights and responsibilities of marriage imposed on them but when they choose to have a child residing with them I believe that should confer a level of responsibility on them not to be able to have that child dumped in a homeless B&B at a whim.

Just to add an unhelpful at thus point tinthe op point...

Im a teacher in a secondary school. Marriage and family life is on the curriculum. It covers the difference between marriage and cohabitation. This includes the legal differences and impact on breaking up.we also cover domestic abuse, what it looks like, where there is help.

The problem is not that it isnt taught, because it is, but that it is taught when it isnt relevant to the person so they dont take it on board.

Some points, having read the whole thread. I have a number of people I want to respond to and can't be faffed quoting them all:

1. OP someone suggested you might get legal aid to discuss this. You won't. Not been available in this area for a few years.

1. Notwithstanding the excellent Baroness Kennedy, the NZ system isn't better than ours, it's inferior. It shits on people who want to live together without the legal obligations of marriage. They have to either live apart or be forced into those obligations, because other people can't, don't or won't learn. That's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, without even attempting anything else.

1. Most of what OP has said is a good example of the point that it's not enough for the information to be freely available, people have to know they need it. If you believe in common law spouses, you've always been told this, and you're even encountering it in legal paperwork from an insurance company (!?) then why would you? I also wonder how strong the impact of the benefits system is here. If the DWP treats cohabiting couples the same as married ones, which it mostly does, that sends out a message. HMRC doesn't, of course, but I reckon more people claim tax credits than tax breaks relating to marriage.

1. Calleigh that's very interesting and I wasn't aware it was taught in schools. I was under the impression that introducing it might be the answer, whilst fully appreciating that teachers already have quite enough to do. Maybe that's not the case after all.

That NZ system sounds awful. I wonder how many cohabiting relationships and at 2 years and 11 months? I would never live with anyone under that system, and I hope everyone is aware of the implications, rather than sleepwalking into giving away their assets. You could be widowed or have an inheritance you want to pass on to your children from a first relationship. What happens then?

The Irish government changed the law a few years ago in a way that seems like a very sensible compromise.

Essentially, if you've been living together for two years with children or five years without, and haven't signed an agreement saying you don't want to accrue cohabitation rights, then either party has the right to apply to the judge to see whether there should be division of assets/ongoing support.

It is a) not the same as marriage and confers fewer rights and b) something that is easy to opt out of. But what it does is recognise that situations change, and put the onus on whoever wants to protect their assets to do so. My understanding is that the judge analyses the case on its merits- so for example, if a couple were living together, both working, child in childcare they both paid for, one party paying the mortgage and the other saving the difference then it's pretty unlikely the flat would be divided 50/50 or ongoing support would be ordered. But in a case where, say, one parent stayed home with a disabled child for ten years but wasn't on the deeds, was fully supported by the partner all that time, then the courts would have the right to require a period of support for the mother, or giving her some of the equity, etc.

I think it's really the best of both worlds, recognising that some people want to try out living together before they make commitments and sometimes children aren't planned. If one party wants to protect, say, an inheritance, they're totally able to do so but have to be proactive about it and sign a document: so the confusion of the OP can't arise. Otherwise, it just means there's a bit of an opportunity to redress the imbalances that often come up when people make their home together- not a perfect solution, and not as protecting as marriage, but hopefully something that would stop some people ending up on the streets after building a home for a decade.

HMRC doesn't, of course, but I reckon more people claim tax credits than tax breaks relating to marriage.

In fact, HMRC administer both. So a truly mixed message.

Indeed.

The Irish system seems better than the NZ one, there is at least some opt out there. You'd still end up fucking over some people who didn't know the law, of course, but in this case it would be unwitting cohabitants who don't want to pool assets rather than unwitting cohabitants who do. I suppose you just have to pick who you'd rather favour.

I will say that in my legal career (though this isn't my specialism, I only did family law briefly) the people who've made a conscious decision not to marry for legal/financial reasons rather than because we don't need a piece of paper, tend to be more informed of the legal realities. So maybe they're less vulnerable than people who think common law spouses are a thing.

The Irish system does seem like a much better one. It also gets rid of some of the deception of the current system, where one person knows full well what their rights are but hoodwink the other with the 'marriage is just a piece of paper' trope. They presumably have to be open that they are doing it to protect their assets. The other party then at least knows where they stand.

There's no deception. EVERYONE is free to find out what the law is themselves.

There is nothing at all wrong with the UK system regarding this as it stands. It presumes you are an adult who's made a decision to co-habitate with someone rather than marry him/her. If you chose to do this and then have children and then elect to become financially dependent on the other party when you have no independent financial means of your own, this is your responsibility! Be a grown up and talk to your significant other about marriage and kids when things start to get serious if that's what you want.

NO ONE can 'string you along' unless you allow them to do so. 'Oh, but it's not easy to leave.' It's certainly a great deal easier when you are still single and don't have kids together. Be a grown-up and aware that there is marriage and there is a wedding, and anyone can afford to marry - rings aren't even a legal requirement. You pay a fee that's relatively low and you are legally married. So 'we cannot afford to get married' is a cop out.

And don't sell yourself short! We see it so often here 'I've been with boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. for 2 years. I'm 25 and he/she is 32. I'd like to get married (and don't sell yourself short with telling the person 'one day', there is nothign wrong with 'I'd like to get married,' or 'I never want to marry', for that matter) but when I bring it up he/she says (insert stall tactic or excuse).' START detaching yourself from this person, because you know what? NO ONE can love you if you don't love yourself first. And love is respect, so start having some for yourself and your goals first. STaying with someone with whom you are incompatible is a certain way to be unhappy.

'Don't whisper love when your dreams peal wedding bells.'

It's not about hoodwinking. It takes 5 min to google the rights of cohabitees .

If people don't know their rights it's because they chose not to find out. Or in fact they DID know but it wasn't going to happen to them.

There are threads all over this board with women stopping work to be a SAHP with their partner. Or living in his house and paying him rent without as much as a tenancy agreement. People tell them how foolish this is and they reply

" oh but we are in love, he's a really decent man and would never treat me like that"

" but we are engaged and will marry when we have saved enough "

" he was ripped off by his ex and I want to show him I'm different "

" he has emotional probelms with commitment and I wast to show how understanding I am "

" he would never treat out kids badly he's a wonderful father "

" it's because of his family, they don't like me and would be upset if we got married "

" we can't because he still own a house with his ex "

And you know that a few years down the line , they will be back saying " it so unfair, why didnt anyone tell me that I have very few rights? He's told me and the kids that we have to leave because he's met someone else "

Ha ha ! X posted with expat

We are psychic

Spot on, Kr1stina! Every time I read d'p' says he isn't happy, my heart sinks. Or threads from women asking about going part-time or SAH and they reveal they are not married, not independently wealthy but 'it wouldn't be worth my going out to work.' Or 'I've been with 'DP' for 5-8 years, whatever, and he says he doesn't want kids.' Even if you're 22, if you want kids and he doesn't, you need to leave. Anecdotes make FA difference, this is your life, not random anecdoter's.

@ Kr1stina.

So do you two think women should get married before moving in with someone?

I think it would be foolish to marry someone before knowing what their domestic habits are like.

I think most people would say it's a better idea to cohabites before marriage.

But then what happens if there's an accidental pregnancy? Are you saying all unmarried women should have abortions?

What happens when after saying he wants to get married/after pregnancy he changes his mind and she is stuck being a cohabite?

The real world isn't asd impel as people making well thought out rational decisions.

Shit happens- one person becoming homeless, accidental pregnancy, redundancy, illness, all sorts that will end up in a woman stuck cohabiting with a partner who can chuck her DCs out on the street whenever.

Child homelessness is a huge social problem, often caused by these archaic rules. It costs us all a fortune. If you choose to live with a child you should take responsibility for ensuring they have a secure home.

Men want their cake and eat it- get prr by being on the birth cert but having no obligation to provide for that child.

The CMS is a joke.

We have this system because it benefits men and the political and legal systems are patriarchal.

It's so saddening to see so many women throw their sisters under a bridge for the straw man argument of a childless women's right to keep her own home.

Do you project as much this in real life, Bee? Get a grip and wind your neck in. Taking responsibility for your own actions is not letting down the sisterhood or the cause of child homelessness . And marriage doesn't only just benefit men .

Cohabitees kicking children out of their homes at a moments notice is a fact of life for thousands of kids. This is a huge cause of child homelessness.

You are just naive.

Half of kids now are born to unmarried parents.

Stop being so smug about how wonderful your own life decisions have been.

Bee, couples living together before marriage is very much needed. You just rent though so an equal footing and not one sided.

As for "accidental" pregnancy, it's very easy to prevent one. Most "accidents" are from not using contraception correctly, being blasé about it or actually planned by one party.

I don't think men want there cake and eat it as you put it, there are millions of resident parents that don't pay for their children either.

If a woman cohabits and doesn't want to be left up the creek if it goes sour then they need to ensure they remain financially independent and only have children they are prepared to raise and finance alone.

All girls should be taught to keep their financial independence, marriage or no marriage.

'Cohabitees kicking children out of their homes at a moments notice is a fact of life for thousands of kids. This is a huge cause of child homelessness.

You are just naive.

Half of kids now are born to unmarried parents.

Stop being so smug about how wonderful your own life decisions have been.'

The only one being naive is anyone, male or female, who elects to become financially dependent on another individual who has no legal obligation to him/her. If you don't want your child/children or self to be seconds away from homelessness due to being reliant on another individual who has no obligation towards you and yours, then it is your job and responsibility to do something about that, no one can do it for you.

As for 'smug' about my 'wonderful life decisions', you have NO clue about my life, so stop accusing others of having qualities you know nothing about to try to bolster your posts, it's weak and stupid.

TBF children suffering because of their parents' choices is a concern.

I'd have thought expat and Kr1stina's posts are trying to do the exact opposite of throwing their sisters under a bridge; they are trying to suggest that those sisters arm themselves with knowledge and to stop throwing themselves under the bridge.

bee you don't know anything about others' life decisions so perhaps take a deep breath and untwist your knicker elastic?

Just because lots of children are born to cohabitees doesn't absolve women from making sure of their own rights and financial security - it's every woman's responsibility to do this for herself.

To infantise women by saying they need to be protected from decisions they make as adults is both patronising and taking the nanny state too far.

In a normal relationship:

Women choose to move in with a partner

Women choose to have unprotected sex

Both are choices and have consequences. A woman is just as much responsible for making sure that future children are not homeless in the same way as man is.

To suggest that one gender is more responsible than the other is throwing your 'sisters' under the bus and is incredibly sexist.

he refused for me to pay towards mortgage and was abusive if I mentioned been added to property

I'm not sure when he got abusive, but that's when you should have realised you were in trouble regarding finances and left.

The fact that he didn't want you to contribute towards the mortgage says it all. He never wanted you to have a stake in the house.