Realistbear Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...7/ixperson.html The penalties of living in sin (Filed: 07/06/2006) John Greenwood looks at why lawmakers want to give unmarried partners more financial protection A call for cohabiting couples to be given increased rights over each other's property has thrown the spotlight on the financial exposure of people who live together without tying the knot. Elizabeth Hicks, the head of family law at Irwin Mitchell, the solicitors, says: "Time and again I see cohabitees' jaws hit the floor when I tell them they will get nothing after years of living with a partner. The problem is that people still believe in the myth of the common law spouse , when it has no legal weight whatsoever." The old reason for NOT getting married: "why buy the cow when the milk is free" may be dissappearing? Don't want to committ to the person you may be shacking up with? May not make any difference to the other person's rights if the law is chnaged. Edited June 7, 2006 by Realistbear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzMosiz Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 And as per normal the male will end up worse off. This Country is crap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 And as per normal the male will end up worse off. This Country is crap! My guess is that if you live with someone both will get equal rights over the other's property regardless of gender. Seems fair if you lead someone along that they are going to be a life partner and after a few years you decide to trade them in on a different model. Could leave some people in the sh*t. Seems that if you want the milk you will have to buy the cow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightytharg Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 My guess is that if you live with someone both will get equal rights over the other's property regardless of gender. Seems fair if you lead someone along that they are going to be a life partner and after a few years you decide to trade them in on a different model. Could leave some people in the sh*t. Seems that if you want the milk you will have to buy the cow? This will just push house prices higher. Now we will need separate houses for ourselves and each of our women. Looks like another bonanza for TTRTR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzMosiz Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) My guess is that if you live with someone both will get equal rights over the other's property regardless of gender. Seems fair if you lead someone along that they are going to be a life partner and after a few years you decide to trade them in on a different model. Could leave some people in the sh*t. Seems that if you want the milk you will have to buy the cow? What if you own a house and your girlfriend/boyfriend moves in. 3 years down the line (s)he decides to cheat on you and take half your house that may be in negative equity? You're shafted! Edited June 7, 2006 by OzzMosiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 What if you own a house and your girlfriend/boyfriend moves in. 3 years down the line (s)he decides to cheat on you and take half your house that may be in negative equity? You're shafted! They will have some kind of forula based on the length of time the relationship lasted. Cheating or "adultery" will probably be taken into account much as it is in a marriage situation. Overall, it sounds like a fair system to me as there should be consequences for making a commitment and deciding to bail out at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guy_Montag Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 They will have some kind of forula based on the length of time the relationship lasted. Cheating or "adultery" will probably be taken into account much as it is in a marriage situation. Overall, it sounds like a fair system to me as there should be consequences for making a commitment and deciding to bail out at some point. Cheating & adultery are not taken into account. In the Court of Appeal, Mrs Miller had successfully argued that the husband's conduct in having an affair was relevant, but the House of Lords rejected this. BBC News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) Overall, it sounds like a fair system to me as there should be consequences for making a commitment and deciding to bail out at some point. You should not have to give up assets you owned prior to meeting your partner. If you both paid for an asset, it should be split pro-rata according to what was paid by whom. This is just a pretext for money grubbing, coin-eyed bitches like that stripper in 85K of debt to take men for all they can get, despite contributing zero - or less - financially to the relationship. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and I imaging there are plenty who will shaft men for every penny when the relationship goes sour. Edited June 7, 2006 by tahoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciderpunk Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 They will have some kind of forula based on the length of time the relationship lasted. Cheating or "adultery" will probably be taken into account much as it is in a marriage situation. Overall, it sounds like a fair system to me as there should be consequences for making a commitment and deciding to bail out at some point. If you want the legal protection afforded by marriage then you should get married. To be placed in a situation where the outcome of a split - which can occur for a myriad of reasons - may depend on the whims of a judge or the quality of your legal representation is neither fair nor desirable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueDeNimm Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I'm confused by this. A girl I know moved in with a boyfriend, a year later she cheated on him, he threw her out, and she successfully got cash for half the amount the house price had increased while she was living there (paying half the mortgage). She moved in with the guy she had cheated with and a year later did exactly same again. Successfully got cash. How come she did this if the law hadn't been made yet? Or was it just that she got cash for the increase- rather than 50% of the whole quity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles_Darke Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 If you want the legal protection afforded by marriage then you should get married. To be placed in a situation where the outcome of a split - which can occur for a myriad of reasons - may depend on the whims of a judge or the quality of your legal representation is neither fair nor desirable. Absolutely agree with you that those wanting protection of marriage should get married. If you want to be a smug git who likes to harp on about how modern you are and marriage isn't for you then I have no sympathy for you when you end up with zip. Is it just me or does the UK become less and less attractive a country to live in each day? I pity the ones who are in heavy student debt, will have no state pension worth mentioning and whose taxes will support the aging boomers who had all the benefits they didn't. I guess they'll also be rent slaves for most of their lives too. Nu Labour has run this country into the ground. It's not surprising that people are leaving for places like HK which have low taxes and few spongers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AteMoose Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) surely on the same vien..... by renting a property are entitled to 100% of the capital appreciation (but none of the risk)? If you bought a house, and your gf is essentially paying some rent to live with you why are they entitled to capital appreciation? Its a risk free way of making money! Edited June 7, 2006 by moosetea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted June 7, 2006 Author Share Posted June 7, 2006 I'm confused by this. A girl I know moved in with a boyfriend, a year later she cheated on him, he threw her out, and she successfully got cash for half the amount the house price had increased while she was living there (paying half the mortgage). She moved in with the guy she had cheated with and a year later did exactly same again. Successfully got cash. How come she did this if the law hadn't been made yet? Or was it just that she got cash for the increase- rather than 50% of the whole quity? The law of contract may have been applied. If you reach an agreement to pay one half the mortgage you are entitled to compensation if the purpose of the contract comes to an end. IF the deal is not made in writing there are all kinds of rules that can override the usual operation of the law of contract, ie. equitable principles to protect innocent parties. The conduct of the parties may not be relvant in law to the outcome of a case but it weighs in the mind of a judge who will lean toward the "innocent party." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinnamon Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 (edited) How many woman who are in cohabiting relationships end up needing the dole when their guy kicks them out? If the blokes are liable, that cuts down massively on the welfare bill, which is good. As for the liability, I'm all for it. If people realise there are more consequences than a broken heart at stake, they might try just a little harder to stay together and be more careful before they jump into a domestic situation. You get 18 month 'free' btw. If you're still not sure after 18 month that the person you're with is your 'true other half', then it is time to move on anyway. So, in this respect, the law is going to have a good effect of cutting down timewasting relationships. Edited June 7, 2006 by Cinnamon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Is it just me or does the UK become less and less attractive a country to live in each day? No, I thought everyone realised that. I'm just hoping my emigration visa turns up before the government start requiring exit visas to get out of here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undersupply Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Why buy a cow when the milk is free? Gonna use that one, oh yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guy_Montag Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Absolutely agree with you that those wanting protection of marriage should get married. If you want to be a smug git who likes to harp on about how modern you are and marriage isn't for you then I have no sympathy for you when you end up with zip. Is it just me or does the UK become less and less attractive a country to live in each day? I pity the ones who are in heavy student debt, will have no state pension worth mentioning and whose taxes will support the aging boomers who had all the benefits they didn't. I guess they'll also be rent slaves for most of their lives too. Nu Labour has run this country into the ground. It's not surprising that people are leaving for places like HK which have low taxes and few spongers. There was FiveLive phone in on this a week or two ago, the callers split into two camps: 1) If you want the benefits of marriage, get married 2) I want the benefits of marriage without getting married. There were plenty who fell into the second bracket who didn't want to get married or were with someone who didn't want to get married because of various pathetic reasons, generally something to the effect of "I had a bad marriage, I don't want to get married again", but I am quite happy to have a relationship which is, to all intents & purposes, identical to marriage, just without the ticket. I fall into the first camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bingley Bloke Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I moved in with my partner (who already had a house) five years ago. I assumed I'd be paying half the mortgage but she wouldn't let me because she didn't want me to get a claim to 'her' house. She was on a high salary and me on a low one, so she paid the mortgage and we shared all other costs. A couple of years ago she gave her job up because it was too stressful and took a much lower paid job. She still pays the mortgage but I pay all the bills because she can't afford to. Things are okay between us but I can't see a long term future for the relationship, though we both thought there was when we I first moved in. I would love to make a break and move out. The problem is, I can't afford a house on my own and she has robbed me of my entitlement to 50% of the equity her house has realised while I've been living there by keeping me off the mortgage. Understandably, saving the money instead hasn't produced anything like the return that it would have generated in property, so I'm stuck in a loveless, if reasonably pleasant, relationshp until such time as prices crash or I win the lottery! If I could get 50% of the last five years' equity (minus what I would have paid had I been paying half of the mortgage to be fair), I could gain my freedom. Will this new law help me or is it just another golddiggers charter specifically for the benefit of women who don't like work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboypass Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 lets cut to the chase. many people choose not to get married in this day and age because their relationships only last months or a few years... ALSO there are many additional benefits to remain seperate such as both owning your own house (no CGT on either) etc... ALSO people dont want to get fricken married!! if you want to the same rights as married people - get married!! so simple.. at the end of the day, if you are a co-habitating partner, you both should have wills if you are not married. So from here on in, im making my GF's sign prenuptial agreements to go out with me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzMosiz Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 I moved in with my partner (who already had a house) five years ago. I assumed I'd be paying half the mortgage but she wouldn't let me because she didn't want me to get a claim to 'her' house. She was on a high salary and me on a low one, so she paid the mortgage and we shared all other costs. If you've paid bills, you've contributed to the running of the house, so should be entitled to something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepwatching Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 So if a man lives with his GF and HER 3 kids in HER house for over two years he can claim half of what she owns........... F@CK OFF........ We wont see that happening. This law benefits lawyers as they will have the right to interfere at £100+ an hour with millions more breakups........ Marraige SHOULD remain the pretext for sharing..... As everybody then has the legal right to say yes to long term commitment if they want to....... Anybody NOT taking this 'security' step should rely on the good nature of their partner..... There should be a simple 'tick the box' answer to this problem, and there is.... That answer is Marraige... This really is the worst type of interfereing that can happen....... A true taste of idiot f~ckwit lawscrewing w@nkers making money flow their way more easily.... A case of........ Cow milks Man to satisfy new law.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AteMoose Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 finally... you move into your gfs house and house prices drop by 30%? Are you now liable for the debt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepwatching Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 It is bullsh!t........ And will end up really messing lots of peoples lives up badly...... Why cant there be a simple £25 a shot legal questionaire to satisfy the demands of the happily cohabiting couples needs should they part company ?????? Why ? Because that is too simple and wouldnt allow the lawyers to make money at will..... I hope some clever HR lawyers fall victim to this, because they seem to have an answer for everything and might just get the whole system kicked out on its @rse..... We will become a society of 103 week relationships and the children (if there are any) will suffer the most..... The dole scroungers in social housing will have it just as easy as ever........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bart of Darkness Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 A call for cohabiting couples to be given increased rights over each other's property If it really is a two-way, both partners treated equally arrangement, I'll eat Kirstie's hat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 The problem is, I can't afford a house on my own and she has robbed me of my entitlement to 50% of the equity her house has realised while I've been living there by keeping me off the mortgage. She hasn't 'robbed' you of anything. Keeping a roof over your head while you pay bills that are probably considerably less than what half the mortgage/rent would be is not 'robbery'. If the house plunges into negative equity, I bet you will be desperate to pay half your 'entitlement', right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.