Anyone had a cohabitation agreement? Like a pre nuptial?
Discussion
My fairly new girlfriend is moving in with me and as my mum put it, would I be happy if we split up in 5 years and I had to give her half my assets....who says romance is dead, cheers Mother.
So has anyone ever had a cohabitation agreement?
Is it like a pre nuptial agreement and is it a good idea to protect previously acquired assets?
Or am I better protected with no agreement.
""Basically the law does not recognise in any meaningful way a living-together relationship outside marriage or civil partnership," says Christina Blacklaws, director of family law at Cooperative Legal Services."
The above from the Guardian.....
EDIT: From this article it seams Mother dearests concerns are unfounded:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/mar/09/coha...
Edited by AnimalMother on Friday 15th July 12:54
I have done one as a safeguard in the past.
As another poster has said, if you don't marry then its a good starting point but if there is ambiguity as to what contributions she has made in terms of the financials then it could become an issue - the cohabitation agreement only serves to show that both parties were singing from the same hymn sheet at the outset and also gives a chance to list assets at the entry to the cohabitation as the Courts starting point will be to put both parties back in the position they were at the outset so its a good starting point to determine what that starting point was.
As another poster has said, if you don't marry then its a good starting point but if there is ambiguity as to what contributions she has made in terms of the financials then it could become an issue - the cohabitation agreement only serves to show that both parties were singing from the same hymn sheet at the outset and also gives a chance to list assets at the entry to the cohabitation as the Courts starting point will be to put both parties back in the position they were at the outset so its a good starting point to determine what that starting point was.
The risk is via land and property trust law under which she could seek to claim in interest in the property if a contribution is made towards it. The contribution need not be financial, or direct.
So don't let her financially contribute or undertake any maintenance on the property. Pay your share of food.
Sad that we have to do this, but it's the greed of women that leaves us no choice.
So don't let her financially contribute or undertake any maintenance on the property. Pay your share of food.
Sad that we have to do this, but it's the greed of women that leaves us no choice.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Sad that we have to do this, but it's the greed of women that leaves us no choice.
b
ks.It's got nothing to do with greed of women, but the greed of partners with less money than the other.
A woman whose new boyfriend was moving into her place would face exactly the same situation.
PurpleMoonlight said:
The risk is via land and property trust law under which she could seek to claim in interest in the property if a contribution is made towards it. The contribution need not be financial, or direct.
So don't let her financially contribute or undertake any maintenance on the property. Pay your share of food.
Sad that we have to do this, but it's the greed of women that leaves us no choice.
Exactly this - and why xjay is incorrect. Her financial contribution, whether rent or otherwise, can be considered an interest. Either take nothing from her at all, or if you are to agree to a contribution, outline by bilateral agreement that it is on the understanding it will not give rise to any interest in the property. Still not a failsafe, but setting out the intention of the parties at the outset would be a starting point if it were ever to get to the unfortunate position of being before a Court.So don't let her financially contribute or undertake any maintenance on the property. Pay your share of food.
Sad that we have to do this, but it's the greed of women that leaves us no choice.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
bks.
It's got nothing to do with greed of women, but the greed of partners with less money than the other.
A woman whose new boyfriend was moving into her place would face exactly the same situation.
I disagree.ks.It's got nothing to do with greed of women, but the greed of partners with less money than the other.
A woman whose new boyfriend was moving into her place would face exactly the same situation.
While the possibility is equal for each, men are not prone to try to take what is not theirs. Women are.
Shnozz said:
Exactly this - and why xjay is incorrect. Her financial contribution, whether rent or otherwise, can be considered an interest. Either take nothing from her at all, or if you are to agree to a contribution, outline by bilateral agreement that it is on the understanding it will not give rise to any interest in the property. Still not a failsafe, but setting out the intention of the parties at the outset would be a starting point if it were ever to get to the unfortunate position of being before a Court.
Hi honeyI was thinking we should move in together
By the way, sign this bit of paper than says you will get f
k ALL BACK when we break upProbably better to rent a house as a joint tenancy agreement lol. If you break up then you both find your own places.
xjay1337 said:
Shnozz said:
Exactly this - and why xjay is incorrect. Her financial contribution, whether rent or otherwise, can be considered an interest. Either take nothing from her at all, or if you are to agree to a contribution, outline by bilateral agreement that it is on the understanding it will not give rise to any interest in the property. Still not a failsafe, but setting out the intention of the parties at the outset would be a starting point if it were ever to get to the unfortunate position of being before a Court.
Hi honeyI was thinking we should move in together
By the way, sign this bit of paper than says you will get f
k ALL BACK when we break upProbably better to rent a house as a joint tenancy agreement lol. If you break up then you both find your own places.
It is probably better to rent a house but that isn't always a financially astute or practical proposition if one party were to already own somewhere. Not only that, but if the existing place has been owned a while, or the mortgage paid down, it may well be that the "tenant" (whether the boyfriend or girlfriend) gets the benefit of contributing a far lesser sum as "rent" than if both parties were to rent somewhere jointly.
Sadly, I have witnessed too many cases of unjust outcomes after splits to bury my head in the sand and invoke a romantic approach to cohabiting. Whilst on one side it suggests you are cynical of their commitment and have the relationship pegged as doomed to fail, the other other side is why would someone well-intentioned be unwilling to agree not to lay a stake to your historical assets? If the shoe were on the other foot I would happily sign something so this isn't an "all women are SWT" issue - its just common sense to me and that carries more weight to me than heart on the sleeve romanticism that works better in film and literature than in does in the real world.
AnimalMother said:
Some further details for you, my residence is actually rented!
Its my property empire (read highly leveraged slums) held in a limited company, savings and cash (which I'll need for coke & hookers urgently if it goes tits up) I more worried about.
Assets outside a property you both reside in would be very difficult to lay a claim to a share of, unless you have a child/children together. Then it's all up for grabs for the benefit of the child/children, although theoretically based on need not greed.Its my property empire (read highly leveraged slums) held in a limited company, savings and cash (which I'll need for coke & hookers urgently if it goes tits up) I more worried about.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 15th July 14:27
PurpleMoonlight said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
bks.
It's got nothing to do with greed of women, but the greed of partners with less money than the other.
A woman whose new boyfriend was moving into her place would face exactly the same situation.
I disagree.ks.It's got nothing to do with greed of women, but the greed of partners with less money than the other.
A woman whose new boyfriend was moving into her place would face exactly the same situation.
While the possibility is equal for each, men are not prone to try to take what is not theirs. Women are.
PurpleMoonlight said:
AnimalMother said:
Some further details for you, my residence is actually rented!
Its my property empire (read highly leveraged slums) held in a limited company, savings and cash (which I'll need for coke & hookers urgently if it goes tits up) I more worried about.
Assets outside a property you both reside in would be very difficult to lay a claim to a share of, unless you have a child/children together. Then it's all up for grabs for the benefit of the child/children, although theoretically based on need not greed.Its my property empire (read highly leveraged slums) held in a limited company, savings and cash (which I'll need for coke & hookers urgently if it goes tits up) I more worried about.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 15th July 14:27
As long as she isn't contributing to your limited company in some way (financially or perhaps as an employee), pretty sure she can't claim anything on that.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff