What’s the deal with not being married?

[Cloud1220]

Myself and DP of 10 years are not married. We have two DC. Mortgage/house in joint names 50/50.

Every thread I see on here (when things get rocky) where someone isn’t married has comments like ‘why didn’t you think about marrying him before you had children?’, ‘this is why you should have been married’ etc.

So, wise people in my phone, what do I need to know?!

Actually not just life insurance would be the sensible responsible thing to do but even more importantly critical illness cover, being sick and alive is a damn sight more expensive than dying to be honest

@Graphista good points. We do have good critical illness and income protection policies.

Our deal with outgoings is I pay the childcare he pays for everything else so: mortgage, bills, food shopping, insurances etc. So actually my deal isn’t a bad one, far from it. But point taken from PP about it being wise to amalgamate all into one joint pot and pay out of that rather than think of it as me paying childcare separately.

@NeonIcedcoffee - I agree it is about some posters feeling superior because they are or were married. It’s utterly bizarre in 2020 that so many women have this attitude.

So so many myths about marriage on here. Doesn’t matter how many times you point them out they stick to them!

Op may be better off being unmarried at this stage as she has a final salary pension and the other assets are jointly held (as far as in understand). So she would stand to lose a lot in a divorce.

Because if he decides to walk away, you only get to keep what is in your name.
Mine is leaving me. Earns over £100K plus benefits. I have had low paid full time/part time jobs and also recently working for his company. Whilst the assests/money will be split 50/50. He has a massive salary and I will now have no job. He has a huge pension. Mine is small. And he is claiming that me doing all the parenting hasn't helped his career.
If you dont believe in marriage/just a piece of paper then go to the registry office, marry and keep your name. But get that paper.

I have had low paid full time/part time jobs and also recently working for his company. Whilst the assests/money will be split 50/50. He has a massive salary and I will now have no job. He has a huge pension. Mine is small

Friend who was married is in similar situation but apart from the assets getting split 60/40 in her favour (because he physically abused her) she will get nothing more.

But it has taken her 5 years and £60k to get to this point,
She is apparently not entitled to any of his pension or salary.

She is on benefits whilst he is on a high salary

In her case she now thinks that for the extra 10% it really wasn’t worth getting married. It has cost her £60,000 and her health it has dragged on for so long. I have been each time to court with her and I have seen her be abused not only by her stbexh but also the court system.

I find it odd that people say marriage is "only a piece of paper" and then say "but I have put lots of other things that are also only "bits of paper" in place".

strip away the frills and marriage is simply a contract between 2 people. It just simplifies everything - so that instead of multiple specific contracts to cover e.g. the house, wills, POA, pensions etcyou just have the one.

However it seems it's a contract which your DP doesnt want to make OP for reasons that seem spurious to say the least...

An update: we had a brief discussion last night about how I was feeling about my potentially vulnerable situation (and that of the kids), and we agreed that marriage shouldn’t be off the table completely. So not exactly a gushing romantic proposal (but I knew the score on that front from day 1 I suppose) but a desire from both parties to discuss what would be best for the family unit, so we will see where we go from here!"

No, you have a further discussion about it seeing as it is not off the table completely. Your kids certainly know that you have a different surname to them. What he told you before was a lot of old flannel re the ex wife of the man he idolised in childhood. This may well have influenced him but its still a lot of old flannel from him and that strikes me as being disrespectful of you. As it stands today your legal position is poor if you were to separate and you two would be treated in law as two separate individuals unrelated to each other. That is the reality here. As he is s/e as well I am not totally surprised either that he has no pension. Is he at all going to address that or will he kick that can down the road too?.

When I think of my marriage in terms of the contract that it is. I am far more secure emotionally knowing dh cannot just do a runner without some kind of contact about what goes where with our finances. I'm entitled to find everything he owns asset wise if I don't already know or if he intends to keep anything from me, it has to be declared if we divorce.

Inheritance wise we are secure and also automatic next of kin.
He can't just run off and marry someone now, he'd have to officially divorce me first which again means sorting finances out.
Due to the years we've been married and the contributions I've made to the marriage but having to work pt to raise dc I am able to at least argue for spousal maintenance especially in my case as dh travels which makes it very difficult for me to work ft as I once did.

I have spoken to a solicitor and been told in my circumstances I would at least be able to get at least temporary spousal maintenance to get me on my feet in the event of a divorce because my old salary was big and I've made a huge sacrifice to raise dc and won't be able to return quickly to the same living standards I had when I was alone.

I am also able to argue either to try to stay in the family home and sell later or argue for more than 50% of the home. I'm entitled to argue for part of his pension too.

For me personally it will probably leave me much better off than if I wasn't married however if I wasn't married I would not have had dc because of the above. I do feel more secure. I don't believe everyone benefits from marriage but every woman I know would afaik ( although perhaps I'm in a small world with lots of sahm!)

@Oliversmumsarmy I'm not a solicitor but friends with a few. I think your friend got quite a bad deal

@Oliversmumsarmy
I think that probably you friend would have been entitled to a lot less than 50% if she hadn't been married. That is only any formally agreed percentage of the house (if anything), her own money and some maintenance for the children.
You only get the 50% starting place when there is a marriage.

@MollyButton - not true if the assets are owned equally, then the assets will be split 50/50 if unmarried. Also if you own most of the assets, then you will walk away with them.

Why this assumption that women are getting "a lot less" of than 50% of the assets if they are not married? I got a lot more because I wasn't married and I'm a woman. Because it was my stuff in the first place.

In ops case, we know they have a house owned jointly and she has a final salary pension (he doesnt have any pension at all). From what we know, op is financially better off unmarried.

@christmaslight - you asked a solicitor if you would get spousal maintenance but you are secure in your relationship?

I don't know your circumstances but a solicitor can only advise you on what they think you might get. Spousal maintenance is pretty rare these days and courts prefer a clean break. Same with staying in the family home - no guarantees and court prefer a clean break. Also as I said above, there's no such legal concept as a "next of kin" and (assuming you are in England) your dh can leave his property to whoever he likes on his death whether you are married or not.

60/40 isn't a particularly bad deal on divorce either, many get 50/50.

@IRunLikeJoeBiden

I don’t get it either OP. I earn more than DP, and we have wills where the other is the beneficiary. We own the house 50/50 and both pay the same into the house. On hospital forms we are each other’s next of kin. There is no need for us to be married that I can see.

My mum's friend was with her DP for decades. She was down as his next of kin. She still had little say when he was dying and then sadly, even less say after. His estranged son waltzed in took everything and forced the sale of her house.

A marriage is a legal contract. To me, a wedding doesn't mean shit. My marriage certificate (aka signed contract) however is a very important document.

@CayrolBaaaskin yes perhaps. It was my friend who's a (very good imo) solicitor, I had months of appointments with her as at the time my dh said he wanted to move to another country for work and I didn't. . My friend also advised it was better that if I ever needed to that I start the divorce not dh
, she did say it's rare to get spousal maintenance but in my own circumstances I would probably get at least a few months to help me get on my feet given what I've contributed and due to the salary difference.
I'm not getting divorced though we stayed in the U.K. thank goodness as I'm happy but happier knowing I am safe too, and as a result I also decided to pursue further qualifications as seeing how vulnerable I could have been helped me think it's always better not to rely on your spouse 100%, but I'd definitely be even more vulnerable without being married. Me personally of course and OP asked what's the deal with marriage. That's my deal.

[quote CayrolBaaaskin]@MollyButton - not true if the assets are owned equally, then the assets will be split 50/50 if unmarried. Also if you own most of the assets, then you will walk away with them.

Why this assumption that women are getting "a lot less" of than 50% of the assets if they are not married? I got a lot more because I wasn't married and I'm a woman. Because it was my stuff in the first place.

In ops case, we know they have a house owned jointly and she has a final salary pension (he doesnt have any pension at all). From what we know, op is financially better off unmarried.[/quote]
A lot of the posts on MN are from unmarried partners who have sacrificed their career for their family and find themselves with nothing when their partner leaves them, happens over and over again so they speak to that all too common outcome.

Doesn’t negate your experience, but it’s just not as prevalent as the one I just outlined

I was widowed at 37. If I hadn't been married I would have been utterly screwed. We hadn't got round to making a will, so I have no idea what would have happened to his half of the house. Probably it would have passed to the children. He hadn't allocated his death-in-service pension to me, so the lump sum and the monthly payments would have passed to our children, not to me. I would have received no widowed parents' allowance, as at that time it was only for married couples (I believe this has changed now/is changing). As it was, everything passed to me automatically as his spouse. Of course, eventually everything I have will go to the children anyway, but if it had all been held in trust for them and I hadn't been able to access it I would have had to sell my home and work full time whilst raising three children and dealing with the devastation his death caused. I was never especially bothered about being married at the time but I am so so glad of it now.

When everything is going well it doesn't mater so much, its when they are not that it really comes into play
I was with my DH for 18 years unmarried. We had built up a business together (where i had made a huge amount of the profits) but somehow everything ended up in his name. All fine, I never really thought about it until his head got turned. Suddenly everything was "his" and he would give me something for my pension. He literally turned stone cold over night. I had two things to my advantage, one, i live in a country with co habitation laws so while I wouldn't have got my dues I would have got about a third (taxed though). Two he still really needed me in work plus it would have gone down like a lead balloon in our industry if he had shafted me. I said we get married or I am gone. We did get married and to be honest we have never been happier, although i will never forgive or forget how he treated me when he thought he had all the power.
The time to push it is now, while you have some element of power and while you are still young enough to start again. Don't wait any longer or you will find yourself in a position, many seem to be on this sight. Kids are 18, he buggars off and you are left with no job, no career and half a house, starting again on the wrong side of 40.

My DH had millions yet he still wanted it all to himself. Money changes everyone. He got so so greedy and entitled and he reduced my contribution to suit his narrative when everyone in our industry would of said I was the main contributor to their success.
I was incredibly naïve and I judged him by my standards. I was so so lucky to get away with it.

WPA has been challenged in the courts but as it stands at present the rules as to who receives this has not changed (only husbands, wives or civil partners). WPA also has now been replaced by Bereavement Support Payment. Bereavement Support Payment has replaced Bereavement Allowance (previously Widow’s Pension), Bereavement Payment, and Widowed Parent’s Allowance.

@workshy44 I’m astounded that you didn’t up and leave him with your dues after waiting for the dust to settle after the wedding. How on earth can you be married to someone, and say it’s happy, knowing that they are fundamentally a horrible person who will screw you over for money?! I couldn’t get past that in a million years. I hope things work out for you though and at least you’re married now if they don’t.

If it's not off the table, do a quick back of the envelope calculation and assuming it doesn't say "your DB pension is worth gazillions stay single" (as you're a mum of young kids I'm assuming you've not built up that many years) book the appointments to give notice.

Assuming he's just being thoughtless and a bit paranoid rather than malicious (you're the one there, not us, so it's for you to judge) you need to do long-term financial planning for the family ANYWAY. Set up LPA, maximize pension and ISA contribs & so on.
Oh and remember wills are invalidated upon marriage, unless they have the magic phrase "in contemplation of marriage to X" in them, but there's nothing to stop you printing out a copy of the existing ones and getting them signed and witnessed (e.g. by your wedding witnesses provided they're not beneficiaries otherwise, ask the nextdoor neighbours) and then you're sorted.

As far as I can see the only difference it actually makes is can't pass assets to avoid Inheritance Tax if one dies and don't get the widows benefits someone listed further down -- AS LONG as you have mutally beneficial wills, own property jointly and are named on each other's pension Statement of Wish (even then, if no first wives/husbands in the background and no children with previous partners the pension administrators have discretion and they will always award to the mother of the children if no previous spouses/children with other partners)

*If you partner doesn’t want to marry you on grounds of “ principle “ then you could get a civil partnership.

Or give you shares in half his business.

Or put all the pension money and savings in your name, to balance out the risk.

So many ways of getting around his issues on marriage. If he wants to of course. If he doesn’t then it’s clear that it’s about his greed and not his principles.*

This

@UsedUpUsername - what I was challenging is the opt cited trope that marriage brings "protection" for women and all the other rubbish on mn. Many women are the poorer partner but many are not and we should not always assume that women are not the higher earners or ones with the most assets.

Marriage does not always benefit women and may not benefit the op.

@DreadingSeason2020sFinale - your mums friend left his assets to his son. He could have done that if he was married too.

*@UsedUpUsername - what I was challenging is the opt cited trope that marriage brings "protection" for women and all the other rubbish on mn. Many women are the poorer partner but many are not and we should not always assume that women are not the higher earners or ones with the most assets.

Marriage does not always benefit women and may not benefit the op.*

This - the picture is very different for an unmarried woman who is a SAHP compared to a professional unmarried woman that earns the same or more than her partner. There are many variations and individual circumstances that have a bearing.

I have seen MANY women hit middle age and be shafted in divorce proceedings when the man hits mid-life crisis and checks out - especially if they are high earners or self-employed and adept at hiding their assets - as these types tend to be (and can pay for expensive accountants/lawyers). Not to mention women who desperately want to divorce but can't afford it.

I have been with my partner for 25 years and we are not married. I earn more than him. He is named on the birth certs of all our kids and has full parental responsibility. Each is named with the kids as benificiary on mutual wills and on all pensions. Property is in joint names. We have a limited company of which we are both shareholders but I have majority.

I don't feel in any way vulnerable and I think it would cost a lot more to untangle all this if either of us wanted to walk away if we were married. Like the OPs partner I had a bit of a philosophical objection to marriage. Now that non-same sex civil partnerships are available we will probably do one of those at some point due to the inheritance tax issue. I feel I am more financially secure and less vulnerable than my married friends, many of whom have little or no income of their own and just have to gamble on whether their husband turns out to be a good guy, or not. I know a few who are trapped in financially abusive marriages where they have to ask for money to get haircuts and squirrel away cashback to buy treats.

I think there is a spectrum of personal circumstances that means that some women may be better off being married, and some may not, or it offers no particular advantage. Either way, it's key for woamne to protect themselves financially I think and no one should be in a situation where they're not on property deeds, don't have wills, and don't have joint and transparent finances.