This Is Going To Increase Property Demand

[whitemice]

Most of contract law is about what happens when things go wrong. Do people think it would be fair to let people make their own contracts, would people want to? I know I would!

I’ve been with my girlfriend for 7 years, cohabiting for 1. I only see the need to make a legally binding commitment when one of us makes some kind of sacrifice (career, financial, etc) and/or we have children. Marriage then makes sense in sociological and economic terms regardless of religion (of which I don’t).

Making marriage compulsory renders it meaningless.

[iamnumerate]

And it doesnt meant its the wrong thing to do, it isnt neccisarily anything, just like the performance of getting married, it isnt the laws of physics or chemistry etc etc, its just made up man made nonsense. You are free to belive in what you want. Only primitive religions and outdated dogma would say otherwise.

But why should people who live together be treated like they are married ? If you want marital rights get married you don't have to be religious. This is making marriage compulsory in all but name.

What next people who have slept together should be treated like married couples if they split up ?

[AteMoose]

your living in your landlords place with your landlord, you and your landlord

fall out are you entitled to the house? If my girlfriend hasnt put a deposit

down i own the house, the risk is all mine. If we split up and prices have

dropped the debt is all mine. However if there are assets she can claim half?

If somone has bought a house, they have the risk and the contract with the

morgage provider, its not a joint morgage. A live in GF, is the same as a

live in tenent, she pays a bit of rent and lives with the owner. What hapens

if your renting out other rooms? Is eveyone co-habiting in a property

entitled to a share?

What happens if the live in gf rents her property out as a BTL and lives with the bf.

Does the man get half the BTL, or does the gf keep her property because she was 'living' at

her boyfriends? IMHO Legal Knightmare.

Edited October 17, 2006 by moosetea

[enworb]

your living in your landlords place with your landlord, you and your landlord

fall out are you entitled to the house? If my girlfriend hasnt put a deposit

down i own the house, the risk is all mine. If we split up and prices have

dropped the debt is all mine. However if there are assets she can claim half?

If somone has bought a house, they have the risk and the contract with the

morgage provider, its not a joint morgage. A live in GF, is the same as a

live in tenent, she pays a bit of rent and lives with the owner. What hapens

if your renting out other rooms? Is eveyone co-habiting in a property

entitled to a share?

What happens if the live in gf rents her property out as a BTL and lives with the bf.

Does the man get half the BTL, or does the gf keep her property because she was 'living' at

her boyfriends? IMHO Legal Knightmare.

The point I was making. How can someone prove who is a tenant and who is a partner?

And what would happen if there is zero/neg equity in the property. Does your cohab have to pay half the debt?

Another great idea that hasn't been thought through properly.

[steve99]

Steve99, you've jumped upon what someone has said because its made you upset. OK. But in the very same post you yourself have shown complete arrogance. My marriage was neither primitive, man made or nonsense. I got married in a Church because of my faith, and yes that did make a HUGE difference.

Only to you, it means nothing to me, to some people it is important that women wear a vale, from my point of view I dont care what you do, but it seems the 'Married' type does care what other people are up to and isnt inclined to mind their own buisness. They are not superior!

[whitemice]

...What happens if the live in gf rents her property out as a BTL and lives with the bf. Does the man get half the BTL, or does the gf keep her property because she was 'living' at her boyfriends? IMHO Legal Knightmare.

This is just making work for lawyers. If laws were straightforward you wouldn’t need a lawyer.

[PostalVote]

No it isnt ridiculous, how arrogant can you be making the assumption that only once 'Married' can you be committed, My other half and I have been together nearly 20 years with out being ' Married' and in that time have seen many 'Married' friends indulge in extra curicula bed time activities and consiquent divorce. Being 'Married' does not automaticaly make you commited to each other. I and many others dont see how that getting dressed up in ridiculous clothes and putting on a seonce in a churh (another primative man made nonsense) makes any difference what so ever. Just check out the 1/3 of everyone that gets 'Married' ultimitly becomes unmarried. Oh and by the way, many people who have critisized us about not being ' Married ' are now divorced and unable to keep up their mortgage payments, how amusing! Time to dispose of primitive medievil nonsense attitudes.

I have to reply to this one as it fully misses the point of marriage. While there is an expression of love in the there somewhere, it is ultimately a contract of law witnessed by both a legal representative and peers of both parties. In getting married you are committing to legal obligations, and in turn are entitled to benefit from the protection of the law, and can also expect to suffer its penalties. You may have your reasons for not wanting a big party, a reunion of distant family and friends, a holiday beyond your normal financial means and a huge pile of gifts, but they're just the optinonal fringe benefits, you can get married in your jeans with two strangers off the street to witness the signing of the legally binding document.

Being married does not make you more commited, you are right, but it does demonstrate that you have some commitment, even if you can't handle it and then go on to play the field, but if you do, you can expect sanctions. To match your arrogant tone, I can only assume you have yet to meet someone you trust enough or care enough about to share everything, a person you would promise, in full view of all your friends, to protect for the rest of your life. Perhaps you have and they couldn't feel the same, who knows, but to view marriage only as the just the ceremony is pathetically uninformed.

Granting the benefits of marriage to unmarried couples both defeats utterly the purpose of marriage and makes cohabitting a defacto marriage. You could be 18 years old and having a bit of fun, or forty with a joint mortgage but unless you sign a legally binding contract you should expect to be entitled to nothing you did not directly contribute. This benefits no one but the solicitors and drives an other wedge in to the heart of society.

[BuyingBear]

Seriously, I would want some sort of co hab pre nup drawn up before she moves in. Harsh I know but i've seen too many relationships seem perfect (like ours) only to turn into a complete nightmare.

Pre-nups have no legal basis in UK law, they are not recognised.

This benefits no one but the solicitors and drives an other wedge in to the heart of society.

And Parliament is packed full of people from which profession?

[SCUMBAG]

I always thought if you were religious then you get married in church, if you weren’t then you get married in a registry office (then you were married in the eyes of the law).

Re: Co-habiting. I was always under the impression that if you lived with someone then the second you started having sex with them then they automatically had rights?

[BuyingBear]

Re: Co-habiting. I was always under the impression that if you lived with someone then the second you started having sex with them then they automatically had rights?

I think the word you are looking for is "control" or "leverage"

[crash2006]

So lets day after 1 year 11 months you break up kick her out then a week later you get back together, would this re set the 2 year thing?

[SundanceSquid]

Ok well lets not panic. it ISN'T Law yet, depsite the usual Daily Moan scare story

Various interfering busy bids have tried to implement something similar for the last few years now.

Normally someone somewhere with a bit of power happens to say "but then no one will stay together anymore durrrrr and the country will be in an even bigger f**king mess than it is now!" And the Spassy politicians go and find something else to stick their noses into.

Having read the consultation paper, it states....

http://www.manches.com/text/news/news.php?id=76

"a new scheme should enable those couples who did not wish to be subject to it to be able to “opt out” by agreement. A scheme which required cohabitants to “opt in” is likely to prejudice the economically vulnerable people it was designed to protect."

Ok it might be a struggle dragging the old lady down to make such an agreement, but having said that what's the alternative?

Having to pretend you are Mr Perfect for the rest of the your life while she turns into Mrs Slob at leisure

Be Lucky

[enworb]

At least men would have a good reason to remember the anniversary of when she moved in.

Don't they call that sellective memory

Ok well lets not panic. it ISN'T Law yet, depsite the usual Daily Moan scare story

Various interfering busy bids have tried to implement something similar for the last few years now.

Normally someone somewhere with a bit of power happens to say "but then no one will stay together anymore durrrrr and the country will be in an even bigger f**king mess than it is now!" And the Spassy politicians go and find something else to stick their noses into.

Having read the consultation paper, it states....

http://www.manches.com/text/news/news.php?id=76

"a new scheme should enable those couples who did not wish to be subject to it to be able to “opt out” by agreement. A scheme which required cohabitants to “opt in” is likely to prejudice the economically vulnerable people it was designed to protect."

Ok it might be a struggle dragging the old lady down to make such an agreement, but having said that what's the alternative?

Having to pretend you are Mr Perfect for the rest of the your life while she turns into Mrs Slob at leisure

Be Lucky

Welcome

[FunkyGibbon]

This nanny government is meddling in every aspect of our lives including decisions about personal relationships. I utterly despair for the future of this country and I am filled with contempt for the dour Scot Gordon Brown who will undoubtedly be backing this legislation to the hilt.

[steve99]

I have to reply to this one as it fully misses the point of marriage. While there is an expression of love in the there somewhere, it is ultimately a contract of law witnessed by both a legal representative and peers of both parties. In getting married you are committing to legal obligations, and in turn are entitled to benefit from the protection of the law, and can also expect to suffer its penalties. You may have your reasons for not wanting a big party, a reunion of distant family and friends, a holiday beyond your normal financial means and a huge pile of gifts, but they're just the optinonal fringe benefits, you can get married in your jeans with two strangers off the street to witness the signing of the legally binding document.

Being married does not make you more commited, you are right, but it does demonstrate that you have some commitment, even if you can't handle it and then go on to play the field, but if you do, you can expect sanctions. To match your arrogant tone, I can only assume you have yet to meet someone you trust enough or care enough about to share everything, a person you would promise, in full view of all your friends, to protect for the rest of your life. Perhaps you have and they couldn't feel the same, who knows, but to view marriage only as the just the ceremony is pathetically uninformed.

Granting the benefits of marriage to unmarried couples both defeats utterly the purpose of marriage and makes cohabitting a defacto marriage. You could be 18 years old and having a bit of fun, or forty with a joint mortgage but unless you sign a legally binding contract you should expect to be entitled to nothing you did not directly contribute. This benefits no one but the solicitors and drives an other wedge in to the heart of society.

Looks like I have to bite back on this one again, my point is this: I want my other half to get all my possessions when I croak it, after 20yrs of commitment. I would expect this without any complications from anybody else, ie my siblings etc making claim to my estate, I see us as more commited to each other than any, and I mean any, married couple we know or have known because most have been divorced (the marriage magic is not real, just a hoped for fantasy) Also I object strongly to the fact that married couples can leave their house tax free to the immidate family but I and many others cant, this is pure predjuice and holds no more logic than racism or other forms of bigitory. In other words I or she would be punished for being different.

And as for it being a field day for laywers, I beg to differ, my divorced friends all had to fork out heaps in legal bills, so why should it bother the wedded if non wedded people have to pay them too, instead of one scarpering off with the loot and easily getting away with it.

And as for weddings and marriage, I dont care what people do, I go to weddings and wish them well and buy presents and hope for the best for them, but this certainly doesnt work the other way round, does it?

I argue purley from logic and common sense, not unreasoning emotion.

[still_renting]

I wonder if it could be possible to extend the law to include friends and aquitances. I have several friends who own their own properties outright, surely its only right that if I have been their friend for X years, then I should benefit from their fiscal prosperity?.

I suspect when this becomes law the plant hire business will take off, in suburbs all over the land at midnight the whirring sound of a mini digger will be heard across neighbourhoods.

ive been paying my landlords mortgate via rent for years now - surley I deserve to ain from there ballistic rise in proeprty wealth...