Rights of unmarried women when separating from a partner

[Ilovemymum1]

I find it both alarming and disturbing that women in England have very few rights when they separate from a partner. I’m not talking about divorce or a civil partnership - just couples who live together either of the opposite sex or the same sex. In my case, I spent 20 years with my partner under the same roof but the ‘roof’ was in his name as were the cars. I kept the home and as he’d already retired, we spent all our time together. We didn’t have children as I had an underlying health issue. He thankfully had children from a previous relationship (marriage). He broke up with me whilst I was away via an email. There’s no-one else in the relationship. I thought we’d always be together but there were many days when I thought of leaving him as his bullying was terribly upsetting. Why didn’t I? I was weak and scared as I didn’t have money set aside as the money he gave me was for housekeeping and if I needed anything extra, I had to ask. Yes I know - what a darn fool I’ve been. Anyway, to cut a long story short I spoke to a lovely lawyer who said that the law in England desperately needed changing and apologised for being unable to do anything for me. I’m in my 50’s with a chronic health condition and a head filled with cotton. He doesn’t have to provide me with anything even though he always promised me that he would look after me no matter what. He wa obsessed with money and sadly no heartstrings that I can pull on.

Here’s a link to the Rights of Women that the lawyer gave me. It’s a guide for people who are living together. For some silly reason, I always thought I was somehow ‘protected’....that if he left me then the law would be on my side. Sadly it’s not. I thought of approaching the Daily Mail to see if they would like to start a campaign to have the law changed so that people in the future aren’t caught out. If nothing else, it would get the word out there that people, like myself, have no rights and it might just help people make better decisions.

Thanks for listening. Have a good Wednesday.

Here’s the link:-
rightsofwomen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PDF-guide-to-living-together-and-the-law.pdf

Oliversmumsarmy in these threads you will always find posts like yours where getting married does not necessarily benefit the woman. Unfortunately. the vast majority of women are not in the fortuitous position of either being named on the deeds or earning more than the 'd'p.
The vast majority are low paid part time workers or sahm with children. Who are living in a house where the male partner is the official tenant or the owner.

It is for the vast majority that this advice is given. If you have the money to pay 10k in legal fees then you can pay legal fees to protect yourself.

The information needs to be promoted in school. They have a class about relationships , sex, etc. The LEGAL benefit of marriage should form part of this - along with the the detrimental effects of not getting married especially when reliant on partner for financial support.

The flip side to all this is all the threads we see where women are living with ‘cocklodgers’ ie men who move in with a single mum and her kids, piss around on the PlayStation, can’t keep a job and are generally a total drain on the woman’s tim, energy and resources. Imagine if every time we saw one of those posts we had to advise women that, sadly, they’ll have to put up with it - because having dated and lived with the guy for 3+ years, she might lose her and her children’s home if she ends the relationship?

Much as love and compassion are important in any relationship, a man in a heterosexual relationship doesn’t have a responsibility to look after a woman financially just because she’s a woman.

I’m very sorry this has happened to you but I agree with PPs that education about the legal protections of marriage is far more important than changing the law.

The only law that needs changing is getting rid of civil partnerships, which existed only because Tony Blair was too big of a weasel to stand up to churches and the right and make same sex marriage legal. Giving rights to live in lovers makes it impossible for people who don't want to asset share (usually because they have children from a previous relationship) to live together.

The world is changing. There are more women in the workplace than before and more high earning women - although we still have a long way to go.

A change in the law would not protect unmarried women. It would protect unmarried people. Be very aware of that. It could be a great detriment to many women.

I dont see the point of granting people the same rights as being married, without getting married.

Getting married is a legally binding contract that you enter into willingly.

I would be pissed off if i decided to leave my partner and still had exactly as much faff to seperate as i had with my ex husband, and sometimes people are forced into cohabiting for financial reasons, but that doesnt mean they want to be together forever, or be financially shackled permantly to somebody that they have not actually married. Not to mention the inheritance laws issues.

I also don't agree that the law needs changing - marriage is a financial and legal commitment, and people that don't want to make that commitment need to be able not to do so.

I do feel for you op though and hope you manage to move forward.

Ilovemymum you don't say anything about his ownership of the house, except that it is 'in his name'. Was it mortgaged, or did he already own it outright? You say he was retired. Did you make any contributions towards actually paying for the house itself, or just contribute to the running costs while living there, presumably rent free?

I don't really think the law needs changing very much. Marriage is essentially a contract and the consequences of breaking / ending the contract are legal. If you don't make that contract you don't get the rights. I think it would be too hard to enforce otherwise. Without the contract what can you prove really?

The simple answer is for women to stop having children with people who are unwilling to commit to them.

Don't be so desperate to have a child at all costs without really knowing who the father is.

There is little benefit to a man to get married besides the wish to be in a loving legally recognised relationship. (Unless he is a lower earner). So having children is pretty much the only 'bargaining chip' an economically disadvantaged woman has.
ie. Man wants a family. Woman refuses without the commitment of marriage. Man agreed, they have children, everyone is protected in case of death, disablement and abandonment .

Woman wants children. Man not bothered. Woman wants partner to be more committed. Gets pregnant assuming this will be the 'commitment ' Man refuses marriage because it's not in his interest (and probably wasn't that committed anyway or he would have asked her to marry).. woman has no legal protection and has put herself in a very vulnerable position by not waiting for a relationship where a man will commit to her prior to having children.

The old fashioned way of marriage first then kids was not just a moral stance but a very sensible legal protection.

Start a petition I will 100% sign it... I think there needs to be a change, I currently live in my partners house which is solely owned by him, I have been and even more so now trying to save money etc to buy my own house so that I have my own home and fall back

mehh does he not want you protected?

Why did you not think of this before moving in with him?

The choices were available to you. You either didnt know or chose not to use them. In which case education is key!

Start a petition I will 100% sign it... I think there needs to be a change, I currently live in my partners house which is solely owned by him, I have been and even more so now trying to save money etc to buy my own house so that I have my own home and fall back

And when you have bought your own house, how will you feel about someone you are not married to having a claim on it?

Defining a de facto relationship...The court will look at many things

So what that means is that prior to even getting to the point of deciding the basis of the split, a court, gathering evidence, has to sit in order to decide whether the relationship is a marriage or not and therefore whether it has jurisdiction.

And because the court is taking that decision based on evidence that it's gathering, an abusive partner or just a partner who is digging their heels in over the split can frustrate, obstruct and otherwise impede that process.

That's easier and cheaper than the £100 it costs to get married, and once married you are married without there being any significant possibility of that marriage being challenged as not being a marriage, because...?

It is bizarre how willing some people are see the erection of complex, expensive and subjective "are they married or aren't they?" processes to appease people who don't want to get married (usually for tendentious reasons) but want the protections of it anyway. You can get married for £100, you don't have to tell anyone if you think it will make you look uncool. If your partner refuses to marry, then they are hardly going to accept in the aftermath of a messy separation that they were married all along.

The flip side to all this is all the threads we see where women are living with ‘cocklodgers’ ie men who move in with a single mum and her kids, piss around on the PlayStation, can’t keep a job and are generally a total drain on the woman’s tim, energy and resources. Imagine if every time we saw one of those posts we had to advise women that, sadly, they’ll have to put up with it - because having dated and lived with the guy for 3+ years, she might lose her and her children’s home if she ends the relationship?

This. Every word.

Sorry this just sounds stupid, the law doesnt need changing... people just need to be educated, you do have rights if not married.. if your name is on stuff!

What kind of stuff do you want? 50% of the house that the other person worked for???

You don't have kids so don't need it for them so just selfish really.

And if its because someone has also put money into there house then they need to be getting there name on it for a percentage of what they have spent.

As for the fact of helping the person through illnesses resulting in loss of jobs or money thats your decision.. noone made you do it and so it's your own stupidness really.

Did you live together in there home? Was it rent free for all that time?

Sorry I just see sooo many stupid things about this post.

First rule of being an adult. Don't trust anyone who can't be bothered to marry you. Even if it's just the 'piece of paper'. It shows that they don't value you and your security.

Can I make you all aware of something I found out yesterday...

I'm married and live with DH in a house which is in his sole ownership. I'm happy with this. It comes to me in trust if he dies.

But...

I just discovered that because we didn't register a charge against the property when we married with the registers of Scotland, if he decided to make me homeless, I'd have difficulty asserting my rights to the house even though we are married.

It only costs about £50 to get a solicitor to register your interest in the marital home on the title deeds. Small price to pay to protect yourself a little in the event of a split.

I'm very sorry you have found yourself in this position but agree educating people to understand is the way forward and not changing the law. Personally I am amazed that people still believe this myth of the common law wife.

I would advise you to see if you can claim any disability and sickness benefits. Try this website for info www.entitledto.co.uk

fontofnoknowledge hits the nail on the head with all the info. Two of my friends have married later in life, one has married a declared bankrupt and the other a Guy on NMW with a history of living with well paid women, though his ex didn't marry him. One marriage is on the rocks after five years the other is going well , no dc in either and these women were both approaching fifty so no chance either only a great risk of losing half their assets if they divorce. So two cases of the more unusual man is a lower earner scenario you mentioned.

The law doesn't need changing, you just didn't take the time or effort to protect yourself. If it was changed then there is no incentive for couples to ever co-habit, and it places a huge risk on the higher earner. Why would you live with someone (say for 5yrs in order to get to know them before marriage) if you knew that if it went wrong you were going to be punished financially? There is no way I would ever consider living with someone if it meant that I had a proverbial gun to my head in case it went wrong...why would anyone. There has to be a something different from marriage rights to allow for easy separation. If a man (or a woman) doesn't want to enter into that sort of legal arrangement then it should be perfectly ok to do so. No-one should be forced to hand over their assets by the state to anyone other than in a divorce. In the OP's case, I do feel sorry for you but you chose your situation, you decided to stay with this man knowing the assets were in his name, you obv accepted that situation knowing you weren't married, so I fail to see why now it's a shock?

I agree with others, legal rights come with marriage, it would not be appropriate to have a legal situation where the lines are blurred, where would it end? It also makes nonsense of marriage because what would be the point of it?
Contrary to what we are brought up to believe, there's nothing much romantic about marriage, it's just another contract. It's not expensive so those who want, or really should have, legal protection in the event of a split should just go ahead and do it.

I hope things work out for you OP, and your ex finds some compassion for your situation

Contrary to what we are brought up to believe, there's nothing much romantic about marriage

Brought up to believe by whom? When your grandmother inveighed about people daring to live together without being married, it wasn't because she didn't think they loved each other. The idea of love as being the sine qua non of marriage, and everything being about how "romantic" it should be, is a product of probably only one generation, and perhaps not even that.

If you know about the laws in France, Australia and NZ, why are you ignorant of the law in your own country?

The law is fine as it is, people just need to do better due diligence. You don’t have to be married to get a contractual agreement in place over assets, additionally if you pay into a property owned by your partner then you might have a resulting trust and be entitled to a share. But if you’ve done nothing more than just live there, then why should you get anything more? I’d be furious if someone I’d lived with for three years could just take half of everything I’d built up myself. Education is key, but to be honest there’s been a ton of education on forums like this and on tv and in the news, but people would rather just believe something their mate told them. That’s kind of on them.

I do feel sorry for you op but the law doesn’t need changing. Oh and the Daily Mail wouldn’t care anyway, they hate unmarried women.

mybabystolemysanity

You are not disadvantaged by not having registered your interest. You are married.
From Scotland's marriage and property website.;
Matrimonial property is all the property belonging to the parties (or either of them) at the relevant date, date of separation) which was acquired by them:
• during the marriage but before the relevant date
• before the marriage for use by both of them as a family home, or as furniture or plenishings for such home

The home is still YOUR joint marital asset. There is nothing to stop you registering your interest now just in case he was sneaky enough to try and sell it without your knowledge.. (which doesn't sound like the case). Registration of interest is not the same a an equitable claim on a marital home. You have that .

OP - what would have happened if he had died suddenly? Who did you think would inherit?

Because the rights of marriage aren't just about divorce, they make you 'next of kin'. Living with someone doesn't just mean that they can leave you and walk away, it also means they can die and you can be out on the street (particularly if they are still legally married to someone else, who then gets dibs on the house etc).