Unmarried couples to gain property rights and possible wider implications

[MsGreying]

Unmarried people to gain rights to partner's property
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-of-unmarried-couples-to-get-stronger-rights

Whilst a simple glance makes it sound appealing I think this has serious consequences.

There's a 10 week consultant from Friday

Off the top of my head: I genuinely think that if people want the legal protections afforded to married couples then they should get married or enter a civil partnership. And I say that as someone who was in a couple of long-term cohabitational relationships.

For people who are marriage-shy, for whatever reason(s), a potential change in the law on cohabitation will also make them shy of cohabitating as well.

There are so many women though and we see them countless times on Mumsnet who have found themselves stuck in abusive relationships and with no way of getting out partly because they're not married and their name is not on the mortgage or similar despite splitting costs with their partner on everything 50/50. So maybe he pays mortgage but she pays all bills, holidays, contributes to home improvements etc.

If they've had children together, it gets even more difficult as they're often financially dependent.

I can see unseen consequences though for financially resposible women who find themselves with a cocklodger.

My MiL has lived with her partner for over 30 years in his house, often being the sole earner. If they split up or he dies, she is either left homeless or is maintaining a house she doesn't own and cant really afford. Her partners son can't afford the upkeep either.

So having a share of the property would give her more financial security.

But, lots of women dont want to remarry, in part, to protect their children financially. They don't want the risk of losing their home to pay for a second divorce. I know women in this position, too.

I think it would be better to have a campaign clearly setting out the law as it is.

Yes, I agree with all of this really. There are so many people who naively enter into a relationship where they don't own any property of their own and suffer the consequences when they split up.

Yes to the "cocklodger" problem too. Also where someone cohabits with a partner but intends for their children to inherit their home.

There is already a long thread on this…

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5538910-consultation-on-unmarried-couples-sharing-assets-when-they-break-up?page=12

Agree. Too many women think they are protected until it's too late and they find they are not. If you are going to co-habit then lots of legal things need putting in place - all of which are automatic if you marry. I decided long ago that living with someone and not married was a highroad to financial disaster, and got married. Worked both times (one divorced, one widowed).

Can I suggest a scenario? This must be quite a common situation. A man is married and they have children. He has an affair. She finds out. They divorce. He finds somewhere else to live. The woman he's been having an affair with moves in with him, or at least is there some of the time. He doesn't want to marry her because he doesn't love her. She's not a nice person but it pleases him to have her around. He dies. Money and property goes to her and not to his children.

If someone has a right to someone else's money and property it means that someone else isn't going to get it.

I suspect someone has said it before me but if people want the legal protection of marriage they should get married. Get the bit of paper. No mega dress, no party, just security.

I wonder at what point a cohabiting partner will gain a right to a property? I think this is odd and is bound to cause a raft of unintended consequences.

DS is the cock lodger.
He has lived with a woman who has two children for several years. He pays nothing except his day to day expenses and a few treats for the family, precisely because she doesn't want to be financially tied to him as she wants to preserve her assets for her children and quite rightly so.
He has his own property which he rents out. How could anyone think it would be right that if they split, he could have a claim on her money?

Calling it a “gain” is a bit dishonest. One person’s gain in this situation is another’s loss. If my (hypothetical) boyfriend / lover / housemate with benefits gains a share of the home I bought then I lose it.

Why on Earth would the state allow this to happen? If we wanted to change to this setup we could get married.

This is like introducing a legal route to being allowed to drive for people who don’t want to get a driving license.

It doesn't sound appealing at all. As a comfortably off widow, I remain unmarried precisely to protect my assets for DC.

I think it's a terrible idea. Much better to educate people, especially women with children, as they seem to be the main losers at present. The number of people who think marriage is "just a piece of paper" is unreal.

I’m even more unlikely to ever share my home with someone else with this set of rules in place.

This is quite a common situation for couples who get together later in life and there will be many, many such couples affected if this became law.
Whether widowed or divorced they often want to stay single and protect their assets for their respective (grown up) children.

I regard myself as somewhat of a radical feminist.
However, this new legislation, by this particular government, sums them up for me. The paucity of forethought, the inadequate bandaid, the lack of detection of unintended consequences, are all so utterly fucking depressingly predictable that I can barely form a coherent response. The absolute, fucking, fools.

I too think it is a bad idea.

Maybe though they should make Sharia marriages legal real marriages automatically so as to protect those poor women who think they are married but aren’t in practice in the case of a split.

Joining the chorus that thinks it's a bad idea.

We need to get away from the idea that marriage is the 'romantic' option: it's a contract, nothing more, nothing less.

Definitely a bad idea. The example of the rich widow who is now forced to live alone to protect her assets is the obvious one, but there are many others examples too.

if the rule applied only to couples with shared children, it would make a bit more sense. But just cohabitation should not have major financial implications.

I also don't understand how they can prove or disprove they are cohabiting. It is almost as if they should sign something ahead of time to state they are in a committed partnership...maybe stating it in front of an officiant. I don't know, maybe like a marriage or civil partnership 🤔

What's the point in getting married then?

Stupid idea.

In Australia, it’s after six months

😨 I'd love ti know the unintended consequences that has caused

Basically, roommate agreement
If people move in, they charge each other renters roommates or they don’t get joint tenancy agreements. They get two tenancy agreements behalf of the House each Theres ways around it. However what’s really interesting? Is it identifies men that don’t ever intend to marry you?
Because I had a friend who got pregnant by somebody she was only a few weeks he suggested that they moved in together but gave her this roommate agreement and immediately she knew where she stood
She terminated and moved on with her life
They’ve been dating for two years beforehand
He never intended to do the right thing

This sounds like a well intentioned move designed to help one group of people- women who have been abused or controlled, that will have a huge, possibly unintended, impact on everyone else. Young single women who want to live with someone before marrying them, and older divorced or widowed women especially.

The cynic in me says this will be a bonanza for lawyers, and a lot of MPs of all parties are lawyers by trade.