Top Judge Sir Nicholas Wall Calls For Unmarried Rights

[Xurbia]

This just won't work and shows how clearly this idiot is out of touch. People will need to get their other half credit checked and demand proof of assets. You're hardly likely to shack up with a women who's got 10 creditcards and who is heavily indebted. Will it work both ways i.e. will the negative equity be equally split amongst the parties? The mortgage company will just demand that you marry before allowing you to cohabit. They won't want the hassle associated with this nonsense.

I had a girlfriend try this on back in the late 90s. I'd let her stay rent-free in my nice pad for 2 years. She didn't pay bills either. I was trying to be nice because she earned so little. Big mistake. When we split she said she'd take half my company and half my house. Her rationale was that property had risen and by living with me had prevented her from buying her own place and making a profit! Fact is she earned too little to buy anything at the time. I then found out she had zero rights and kicked her straight out the house. Some of my supposed friends had a problem with this. They argued that because I earned a huge income I should have given her a chunk of cash!!! These are now ex-friends because they have a flawed idea of what's fair.

I wouldn't suggest living with someone before marriage unless you have a joint mortgage.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Xurbia

[leicestersq]

This just won't work and shows how clearly this idiot is out of touch. People will need to get their other half credit checked and demand proof of assets. You're hardly likely to shack up with a women who's got 10 creditcards and who is heavily indebted. Will it work both ways i.e. will the negative equity be equally split amongst the parties? The mortgage company will just demand that you marry before allowing you to cohabit. They won't want the hassle associated with this nonsense.

I had a girlfriend try this on back in the late 90s. I'd let her stay rent-free in my nice pad for 2 years. She didn't pay bills either. I was trying to be nice because she earned so little. Big mistake. When we split she said she'd take half my company and half my house. Her rationale was that property had risen and by living with me had prevented her from buying her own place and making a profit! Fact is she earned too little to buy anything at the time. I then found out she had zero rights and kicked her straight out the house. Some of my supposed friends had a problem with this. They argued that because I earned a huge income I should have given her a chunk of cash!!! These are now ex-friends because they have a flawed idea of what's fair.

I wouldn't suggest living with someone before marriage unless you have a joint mortgage.

Xurbia,

great post. Remember though, whilst the idea is that of a Top Trougher unashamedly Top Troughing, someone somewhere might actually try and implement something like this as law. Just because it is complete lunacy, doesnt mean it wont happen. It is a very serious threat to the sanity of the nation.

If people want protection, you can write your own contracts, or get married if you prefer that. The default position has to be that ownership of assets does not change. I cant imagine how someone wanting to move in with their other half would immediately have to be faced with a contract when the other half is being sensible. It sort of destroys the mood. However, that is what the nation will be reduced to whilst we wait for the lawyers to find another way for you to be forced to use their services.

[Xurbia]

Xurbia,

great post. Remember though, whilst the idea is that of a Top Trougher unashamedly Top Troughing, someone somewhere might actually try and implement something like this as law. Just because it is complete lunacy, doesnt mean it wont happen. It is a very serious threat to the sanity of the nation.

If people want protection, you can write your own contracts, or get married if you prefer that. The default position has to be that ownership of assets does not change. I cant imagine how someone wanting to move in with their other half would immediately have to be faced with a contract when the other half is being sensible. It sort of destroys the mood. However, that is what the nation will be reduced to whilst we wait for the lawyers to find another way for you to be forced to use their services.

It's a frightening prospect. I went out with a really unhinged bitch, back in my teens, for a few months. People can hide their personalities very well, especially if they are intelligent. Before long you'll need to secure a mental assessment, a physical check, interview the parents and ex-boyfriends and perform a credit check.

I think living apart before marriage is probably better for the relationship anyway. As you get older it's easier to identify the good women from the bad but anyone can get caught out when it comes to love.

[Austin Allegro]

You wouldn't dream of entering into a mortgage or long term employment without a contract so why would you with a long term relationship? plus marriage doesnt have to be religious. I went to a wedding a couple of years ago in a castle that had no mention of any religion.

Civil marriage specifically prohibits any mention of religion to a fanatical degree, eg, the song 'Angels' by Robbie is not allowed in civil ceremonies.

I once went to a wedding in a deconsecrated church used for civil weddings, there was a huge cross above the signing desk. When I asked the registrar why a religious symbol was permitted, she said it was classified as an artwork!

[HPC001]

I thought it was logical\plain common sense to wait a while before moving in with a boyfriend\girlfriend?

It usually doesn't take long for someone's true nature to become apparent, which is why I tend towards the "friends first" approach.

Edited February 3, 2011 by HPC001

[Jack's Creation]

I think that this is a bit of a myth.

The legal system has destroyed marriage. It's unfair and costly judgements are being rejected by the nation, people are avoiding the cost and the bad law by not getting married.

This is causing lawyers real financial hurt, so they want to remove your choice, and line their pockets. The vi here just stinks.

I agree. Also, the revolving door criminal justice system keeps the legal profession in perpetual clover. I suspect the greatest advocates of softer sentencing will be V.I's in the legal profession.

[Bean counter]

I'm confused as to how this could possibly be workable. How would it be determined as to whether the relationship was one of 'co-habitation' and when it began? Sir Nicholas Wall seems to refer to an 'intimate relationship'. Well by definition that is private for most people! Years before he became 'Mr' Beancounter, Mr Beancounter spent a year living in my house as a favour to a friend. It wasn't a formal tenancy but just sort of pay some bills and buy some food as you think reasonable. I had stayed with male and female friends on similar basis over the years. Would there be a possibility of a claim against property in each of these cases?! I assume it would have to apply equally to same sex relationships?

[Xurbia]

I'm confused as to how this could possibly be workable. How would it be determined as to whether the relationship was one of 'co-habitation' and when it began? Sir Nicholas Wall seems to refer to an 'intimate relationship'. Well by definition that is private for most people! Years before he became 'Mr' Beancounter, Mr Beancounter spent a year living in my house as a favour to a friend. It wasn't a formal tenancy but just sort of pay some bills and buy some food as you think reasonable. I had stayed with male and female friends on similar basis over the years. Would there be a possibility of a claim against property in each of these cases?! I assume it would have to apply equally to same sex relationships?

It won't work but that's how the British government and the EU like it. Loads of work for Sir Nicolarse Tool.

A drunken bunk-up with a platonic flatmate could be difficult to prove as being a one-off event.

What happens when there's a mistress involved? Does she get a third of the family home and a slice of the pension?

Perhaps this will reduce promiscuity more effectively than HIV?

[Bean counter]

But how could one even prove (or indeed disprove!) a one off 'drunken bunk up'?

As a feminist and someone interested in social justice I can totally see where Sir Wall is coming from. It is generally women (although not always) that lose out in co-habitation and generally those from the lowest socio-economic groups. They seem to be more likely to be in a co-habitation relationship and also have less independent earning power and resources. But, and it's a big but, as a libertarian I cannot justify the government imposing a sort of quasi 'marriage relationship' on people by default and without even the option to opt out.

[MongerOfDoom]

But how could one even prove (or indeed disprove!) a one off 'drunken bunk up'?

As a feminist and someone interested in social justice I can totally see where Sir Wall is coming from. It is generally women (although not always) that lose out in co-habitation and generally those from the lowest socio-economic groups. They seem to be more likely to be in a co-habitation relationship and also have less independent earning power and resources. But, and it's a big but, as a libertarian I cannot justify the government imposing a sort of quasi 'marriage relationship' on people by default and without even the option to opt out.

Just how do you lose out by living with someone then, especially if you are from a low socio-economic group? It seems to me the most reasonable claim would be "well I could have fornicated with someone else who might have turned out to be more generous"?

[Bean counter]

Because women, especially never married ones, still bear the overwhelming burden of childcare and earn a lot less money, even when they work. I have no vested interest in this; Mr Beancounter and I are legally married, I have my own money and we don't have children.

But I do see from my previous (far, far less affluent life) that it can be very tough for women that don't have their own income and independence. We do not live in a world of equality.

[Xurbia]

But how could one even prove (or indeed disprove!) a one off 'drunken bunk up'?

As a feminist and someone interested in social justice I can totally see where Sir Wall is coming from. It is generally women (although not always) that lose out in co-habitation and generally those from the lowest socio-economic groups. They seem to be more likely to be in a co-habitation relationship and also have less independent earning power and resources. But, and it's a big but, as a libertarian I cannot justify the government imposing a sort of quasi 'marriage relationship' on people by default and without even the option to opt out.

The courts will decide and it will be up to the homeowner to prove their innocence. There is no justice in Britain.

I don't understand what gender has to do with this at all, unless children are involved. It's just as perverse if the lower income party inherited a home and then has to forfeit part of it because a relationship sours.

This is just trying to bring back Victorian values of living apart until marriage. Those values, which do make sense to me, play no part in today's society. Modern society allows bed-hopping and living together. Labour allowed mass immigration as a cultural experiment and Sir Tool is trying to apply his own values to everyone else. Freedom?!

I'm glad I moved to America. Britain is a fast becoming lost up its own ****.

[MongerOfDoom]

Because women, especially never married ones, still bear the overwhelming burden of childcare and earn a lot less money, even when they work. I have no vested interest in this; Mr Beancounter and I are legally married, I have my own money and we don't have children.

But I do see from my previous (far, far less affluent life) that it can be very tough for women that don't have their own income and independence. We do not live in a world of equality.

I am pretty sure there already are generous provisions for women with children, whether married or not.

The proposed law makes a distinction between people who sleep together but live apart, and those who do it in the same house. There must be something about living together that deserves a "compensation" then?

I can see the argument that cohabitation is more likely to involve a woman who becomes destitute on the relationship ending, but I don't see she would be substantially better off if she lived on her own, except maybe in that she would be entitled to more benefits? In some countries you can sign a pre-nup where each partner gets a notional account credited when they transfer something of value to the parner (e.g. half of the rent), and debited when the partner does. They agree to balance their accounts to zero every year or so. I see i) nothing wrong with this, and that ii) the hypothetical poor woman we consider would end up with a debt rather than a chunk of someone else's house. If there is a reasonable argument for this arrangement being fair, then it will clearly take a massive stretch to ague the law should compel couples to do something substantially less generous to the wealthier partner.

[i can also see the argument that if two people share the costs of paying for their accommodation and by doing so build up equity, there is fairness in them splitting that equity in proportion to their contribution to it. I cannot see why that should only apply to people who are intimate together? ]

[MrBushy]

Just how do you lose out by living with someone then, especially if you are from a low socio-economic group? It seems to me the most reasonable claim would be "well I could have fornicated with someone else who might have turned out to be more generous"?

Because you turned down career opportunities, took time out to look after children, or otherwise prioritised your family.

Or, yes, you could have had a relationship with someone else who would have loved you, married you, and given you financial security.

These proposals aren't concerned with one night stands or transient relationships.

They are concerned with cases where people have made significant financial sacrifice to contribute to a relationship or family... and 10 years later been left with nothing. It happens.

[MongerOfDoom]

Because you turned down career opportunities, took time out to look after children, or otherwise prioritised your family.

It's not exactly compulsory to have children with someone you are not married to, would not be left with nothing if you did because the current law already protects the children, and in any case the proposed law would also apply to childless couples.

Or, yes, you could have had a relationship with someone else who would have loved you, married you, and given you financial security.

That is exactly my point. In the absence of children the above seems to be the main argument. So how much do you deserve for sleeping with someone wealthy who then fails to marry you?

These proposals aren't concerned with one night stands or transient relationships.

They are concerned with cases where people have made significant financial sacrifice to contribute to a relationship or family... and 10 years later been left with nothing. It happens.

Again, let's assume a childless couple. Now how would you value a "sacrifice" for a relationship, and why should it depend on the other partner's income. The way I see it, the wealthier partner could have "sacrificed" more?

[okaycuckoo]

For clarity, here's a link to the BBC account of what the judge said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12352200

His views are probably based on practical concerns - particularly the bit about trust law - but I'm worried that the judges are becoming a law unto themselves and brushing aside democratic mandates because they reckon they know better.

There was a controversial decision last week in the supreme court, where Baroness Hale, a family law judge, actually extended the words of an act of parliament on domestic violence to include situations that experienced family lawyers think parliament should have included (or would include if the legislation came up for another vote). The basic controversy is whether or not parliament originally contemplated this interpretation. My view is that the court was impatient with what it sees as an anomaly in the law and decided to bypass parliament.

The Daily Mail went ballistic on it, but here's a bit of rational debate from lawyers:

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/01/the-brilliant-baroness/

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/01/on-the-naughty-step-a-bag-of-wind/

These are involved subjects, so research and reflection are recommended.

I think people in a relationship should be able to secure the value of their contributions. The question then is, How do you value the bits and pieces of everyday life? The obvious answer it to allow enforcement of pre-nuptial/pre-relationship contracts freely entered into. Beyond that It's just too tricky, and the courts should steer clear.

Plus the insistence by the state that it can make those evaluations is dangerous, especially when it comes from unelected experts. In the end, they're trying to drive social policy without legitimate authority.

We suffer from too much law.

[Bean counter]

Gosh! Seemed to have re-ignighted this one with a woman's thoughts and views!

Where do you draw the line? I'm an old-fashioned old git. I married my husband for better or for worse. Probably for worse with my luck??!! But seriously marriage is a very serious thing. It doesn't matter that large sections of society don't see it that way. Or does it?

[Chest Rockwell]

Here's a fact for you guys with kids and a wife or girlfriend:

You're missus CAN ditch you tomorrow, find a new man, get your kids to call him "dad", block your access, accuse you of ANYTHING and there is JACK SHIT you can do about it! You will be liable for Child Support whether you see your kids or not! And people "wonder" why this country is going down the pan?

However, if you as a man did the same you'd go to jail and no-one would know BECAUSE the Family Courts operate under terms that are more secret than the Official Secrets Act!

As for this Mangina Judge: he's a tw@t that is trying to ensure that the Family Court "bubble" continues it's merry way of making Billions per year!

50/50 rights for women and men is the answer...but 100/0 is good for business!

Edited February 3, 2011 by Chest Rockwell

[MrBushy]

...would not be left with nothing if you did because the current law already protects the children

Assuming you are female.

So how much do you deserve for sleeping with someone wealthy who then fails to marry you?

Genuinely, I think "more than nothing" in a lot of cases. But not all.

There is clearly no magic answer, and it is easy to represent different viewpoints using different examples

(hence the legal gravy train), but that doesn't mean that we can't be more just.