Get married - yes or no?

[PizzaPatel]

I often see it said on here that when you have kids you’re better protected from a split if you’re married.

Can anyone explain this to me?

I have kids and am not married. I love my partner and at present we have plans to get married BUT im aware that separation is particularly hard on women and im not particularly romantic re. Marriage so I only want to do it if it makes sense.

In my head getting married means getting more stuck. Divorce is harder than walking out. What do I stand to gain by getting married? Obviously this is worst case scenario - im hoping for the happily ever after but also a pragmatist.

Our details:
He earns 3x what I earn.
I work slightly less than full time.
I own almost all the equity in our house and we have a declaration of trust.
2 kids

Thanks in advance

Are you building up your pension pot?

Can you afford to take over the mortgage? What happens if house prices crash and the equity in the property diminishes?

Will you be able to increase your earnings in short order should you need to?

Could you survive on the lump sum from selling the house, plus child maintenance (look it upon the CMS calculator)? If your DC are settled in school, can you afford to buy/rent somewhere that means they can continue at the same schools and be with their friends?

If DP has a life-limiting accident or illness, can you take over all the household costs, or would you have to move and or remortgage to pay for adaptations? This of course could cause problems even if married and your earnings meant you had to downsize, but if the solution meant your equity was gone, you might need to rethink. If he dies, would IHT have to be paid?

"I often see it said on here that when you have kids you’re better protected from a split if you’re married"

It's not the having of DC per se, it's when that leads to financial dependency. Because of career breaks, part-time working, loss of progression, reduced lifetime earnings etc

If you are happy that you could totally support your family in a range of difficult circumstances (splitting up, his death or incapacitation, your incapacitation) then there might not be any particular imperative to marry. Remember that this includes long-term as well, so pension as well.

To answer your questions:

We both pay into a pension. Mine is a good pension - he pays very little into his private pension.

I couldn’t take over the mortgage alone.

I have a lot of equity though so could weather a house price crash.

I work almost FT already so couldn’t increase my earnings by much.

At the moment if we split I think I’d be able to afford a flat or small house for myself and DC mortgage free or with a small mortgage so I could survive on salary plus CMS payments.

If DP had an accident or illness we’d have to move.

Would you get married in my circumstances?

Also thank you for taking the time to reply, both of you.

Marriage is a legally binding contract and it’s meant to protect the interests (financial and relating to any propriety) for the child.

If you’re already protected by legal contracts then perhaps it makes no sense for you.

I also want to point out that marriage for love is a fairly recent phenomenon. In the past people got married for alliances and land etc.. so the romantic notions of what marriage is is new. It’s a contract and people now associate it with love.

Apparently being married is also better if one of you dies- I think to do with taxes etc. Friends of mine (together 20+ years & 2 dc) recently got married on the advice of their legal and financial advisor- specifically for protection in case of death. They are normal people, not rich or anything.

is the equity likely to be more than £250k or whatever the IHT threshold is now?
I assume you have a will leaving it to him, if you were married there would be no IHT to pay, while you are not married he has to pay IHT on anything above the threshold.
assume you are both named as beneficiaries for each other's pensions and life insurance policies?

if I were you I'd go through this list when weighing it all up
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

I guess it also depends how you feel as well as the practical aspects.

It's much easier to get divorced now the changes have come through remember.

I'll be honest, I think it's the decision to leave that is the hardest bit regardless of if you are married or LTR. Most people I see on here take years to make that choice and I'm not sure it's the divorce itself but the admitting to someone else that it's over, the implications in moving out/kids etc.

I'm married and am contemplating my next move, I'm not bothered about getting "divorced", it would make no difference if we were married or not. It's the fact that I have to break someones heart, someone needs to move, the kids wouldn't have dad around, will I be alone the rest of my life, is it the wrong choice to end things.
I think marriage feels like it gives more logic to the situation as I feel there are much more legal rules to the situation about who is protected from what etc.

If you could keep yourself and your kids if you split up, I wouldn’t get married.
Make sure you pay bills etc according to your earning %, maintain your pension, have some savings, and get wills written.

The only time it's not beneficial to get married is if your earnings, asset and pension is higher than your partners really.

If you own the bulk of the assets, then marriage is probably not in your interest.

If you get divorced the starting point is add up ALL assets (inc pensions) and divide equally. Then consider section 25 matrimonial causes act. This includes spousal maintenance if one is a high earner all though not so common these days

If not married and you separate you are entitled to what's yours on paper. So any property is split as per legal ownership. There can never be pension sharing orders or spousal maintenance orders.

If one of you becomes poorly then if you are married you are next of kin. If not married then not necessarily next of kin.

The death thing is interesting - sounds like that’s the only thing that would be in our interest. At the moment I think my partner would have to pay IHT if I died due to the equity I have but I wouldn’t if he died because his money is all monthly income, and we have way less than the £325k IHT threshold in savings.

Im guessing death in service payments and life insurance don’t count as inheritance?

You can Google it but if you are married, you have an automatic right to your spouses estate were they to die. more likely to be relevant is the fact that married couples have financial obligations to each other, which cohabitating couples do not - eg in the event of a split, you’d have a right to remain in the family home white a court decided how assets should be split, even if the house was in your husband’s name.

as a rule you will get better financial provision for you and your kids as an ex wife than an ex partner. If your partner earns more, this is important.

go and see a solicitor to talk it through. You can draw up other. Contracts to get round it but it’s easier to just get married.

You need to check the terms of the life insurance - you can get it put "in trust" - with a named beneficiary, which means it is outside of the IHT and also gets paid immediately (don't have to wait for probate etc). Absolutely worth doing - and easy enough - just a form from the provider (will need witnesses).

Death in Service - worth checking - and again if you can get it put "In Trust" do so as will keep it our of inheritance tax

Death in service and life insurance are usually payable to beneficiaries so not part of your estate.

Do you have documents allowing you to make medical decisions for each other? If one of you was in a coma, your legal next of kin could take over and shut out the partner and children.

If you are hugely better off than them and always will be - don't get married.

If you are not loaded and are (or will be) taking any sort of financial hit for OH or kids, get married. Your OH can't just waltz off with the money when they decide you're not the woman of his dreams, then.

If you think you'll hit IHT limits, get married.
If there's a DB pension which always pays out to a spouse when the pensioner dies but only "at trustees' discretion" to an unmarried partner, get married.

If one or the other of you has shares or share options which may have to be sold all at once in a year and we're talking over the CGT limit - get married. DW can then transfer half her shares to DH, they both sell them, DH then transfers the proceeds back to DW, they get to use both DW's and DH's CGT allowances that year. #firstworldproblems, absolutely, but various companies have share option / purchase schemes so it can happen.

Whoever said, "Marriage is just a piece of paper ... like a bank note" is spot on. Romance schmomance - get out the spreadsheet.

Read the citizens advice link someone posted upthread. It details all the differences legally between marriage and legally single.
Legally you are not each other’s family, and the only legal protection you have in place is whatever you signed for the house.

Aside from the financial implications, you most probably won't be his next of kin. So if he was in a serious accident or even died you would have no say in his treatment or funeral planning, unless his next of kin included you.

This isn't completely true.

If there is division between you and his family, then yes you could find yourself in a difficult situation at just the wrong time. But in practice it isn't like that. As the established cohabiting partner and mother of his DC, you will be treated as NOK unless someone else closely related kicks off about it.

It might be different if some frightful accident happens overseas