common law and living with a partner
common law and living with a partner
Author
Discussion

jonah35

Original Poster:

3,940 posts

173 months

Sunday 21st August 2011
quotequote all
imagine this situation

there is a young couple, mid twenties, and the chap has lots of money, let's say tied up in cars, cash, a big pension pot, properties,equities and so on and no debt and he moved in with his girlfriend who is more the 'usual' type of graduate that has a few grand in the bank and a student loan but nothing else.

now, they either buy a place using his money as the deposit or he buys the property outright or, he decides to keep the money in his name and they therefore rent, or he decides to live in a property that he owns and she doesn't with his girlfriend.

they are together many years but he doesn't want to get married but she has contributed to the bills, general upkeep of the house and so on.

no kids.

would she ever be able to make a claim on his assets (property, cars, cash, pension, equities) etc? I'm thinking in the common law sense or any other relevant law?

Now, secondly, if he had kids with her and then they split up, he'd (obviously and arguably rightly) have to pay maintenance for the kids but would he have to give any assets away?

interesting question as I thought common law was a myth but a friend of mine pointed out that it's not a myth.

thanks


CaptainSlow

13,179 posts

228 months

Sunday 21st August 2011
quotequote all
On the first point if they were to buy together using his money as the deposit she would have a claim on any value increase in the asset. If he were to keep the property in his name only she would need to show a "beneficial interest" ie did her contributions go towards the mortgage/home improvements etc. Best way would be for him to not take any of her money (or keep a rent book - not romantic I know).

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

173 months

Sunday 21st August 2011
quotequote all
No kids, she could go for a share of the house they shared. May or may not get it.

With kids, she could go for a share of everything (except pension). Almost certainly would get it.

jonah35

Original Poster:

3,940 posts

173 months

Sunday 21st August 2011
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
No kids, she could go for a share of the house they shared. May or may not get it.

With kids, she could go for a share of everything (except pension). Almost certainly would get it.
really, even though they aren't married?

so, it's quite difficult for a man to live with a woman even if they aren't married if he wants to keep his finances separate?

jonah35

Original Poster:

3,940 posts

173 months

Sunday 21st August 2011
quotequote all
CaptainSlow said:
On the first point if they were to buy together using his money as the deposit she would have a claim on any value increase in the asset. If he were to keep the property in his name only she would need to show a "beneficial interest" ie did her contributions go towards the mortgage/home improvements etc. Best way would be for him to not take any of her money (or keep a rent book - not romantic I know).
yeah I suppose the man wouldn't mind sharing the increase in value of that one property with the woman if she paid half the mortgage

what if he owned the house and she just contributed to bills but not the property itself?



jonah35

Original Poster:

3,940 posts

173 months

Sunday 21st August 2011
quotequote all
strange question here, but what if she deliberately had kids to take half of his wealth and an easy life for her?

so, for example, a footballer is aged 29 and has a good 'single life' but meets a girl and she moves in for a year, nothing serious or anything just a 'girlfriend' and then she gets pregnant even though he's stated clearly he doesn't want kids and she assures him she's taking precautions.

would he then lose half of everything and have to pay a massive maintenance?

do not get me wrong, I am not saying a father shouldn't pay towards the upbringing of his kids but for the mother to able to have half his house and bank account and cars seems unfair, no?

Eric Mc

124,064 posts

281 months

Sunday 21st August 2011
quotequote all
The important distnction between a "married" situation and a "living together" situation is that with marriage, there are automatic rights and responsibilities in law.

With a living together situation these "rights and responsibilities" are not automatic. Any claim for part of someone else's assets would have to be spelled out in court.

Whether a judge would decide that the other party is entitled to any such share would have to depend on the circumstances of the situation. The following factors would be looked at -

how long they have been living together
prescence of children
the contribution made by the claimant to the relationship - both financial wise and time and effort wise.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

173 months

Sunday 21st August 2011
quotequote all
jonah35 said:
strange question here, but what if she deliberately had kids to take half of his wealth and an easy life for her?

so, for example, a footballer is aged 29 and has a good 'single life' but meets a girl and she moves in for a year, nothing serious or anything just a 'girlfriend' and then she gets pregnant even though he's stated clearly he doesn't want kids and she assures him she's taking precautions.

would he then lose half of everything and have to pay a massive maintenance?

do not get me wrong, I am not saying a father shouldn't pay towards the upbringing of his kids but for the mother to able to have half his house and bank account and cars seems unfair, no?
Not half, but certainly better than state benefits for a single mother ....

TFP

202 posts

231 months

Sunday 21st August 2011
quotequote all

98elise

30,152 posts

177 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
jonah35 said:
imagine this situation

there is a young couple, mid twenties, and the chap has lots of money, let's say tied up in cars, cash, a big pension pot, properties,equities and so on and no debt and he moved in with his girlfriend who is more the 'usual' type of graduate that has a few grand in the bank and a student loan but nothing else.

now, they either buy a place using his money as the deposit or he buys the property outright or, he decides to keep the money in his name and they therefore rent, or he decides to live in a property that he owns and she doesn't with his girlfriend.

they are together many years but he doesn't want to get married but she has contributed to the bills, general upkeep of the house and so on.

no kids.

would she ever be able to make a claim on his assets (property, cars, cash, pension, equities) etc? I'm thinking in the common law sense or any other relevant law?

Now, secondly, if he had kids with her and then they split up, he'd (obviously and arguably rightly) have to pay maintenance for the kids but would he have to give any assets away?

interesting question as I thought common law was a myth but a friend of mine pointed out that it's not a myth.

thanks
Common Law Marriage is a Myth in England. There is no distiction between 2 weeks, 2 years or 20 years together.

If two people who live together split, then they take out of the relationship what ever they put in. If one partner "owns" the house, but the other contributes to bills etc, then they would have a claim based on the % they put in.

Once you start having kids outside of marriage then it gets more complicated.

I'm at 20+ years of marriage avoidance smile


Eric Mc

124,064 posts

281 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
And for goodness sake, don't die intestate.

anonymous-user

70 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
I'm in the following position:

Own my own house, no mortgage.
Own my posessions and cars outright.
Cash in the bank.

My girlfriend moved into my house 4 years ago and hasn't paid anything towards the cost of my house or my 'stuff', but we do share the cost of living 50/50 (utility bills, holidays, food, expenses, new TV etc)

She owns her own car and has some cash but doesn't own a house or anything like that.

No kids, neither of us have ever been married.

I have been told that in my situation I have nothing to worry about if we split up as there is no such thing as 'common law wife' as mentioned above, plus she would have no legal claim on any of my things such as house/cars as she hasn't contributed financially to the purchase of then.

Is this correct or do any of you know otherwise?

Eric Mc

124,064 posts

281 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
It's not as simple as that. If you split up and couldn't decide amicably how to split things and a court case ensued. The court would try and put a value on her contribution to the arrangement over the period of time she was with you. They could very well decide that her award would be Nil. Or they could award her tens of thousands. You just don't know until the sums are done and a court decides.

caymanjames

2,971 posts

174 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
my gf and I signed a legal document when we bought our first place a couple of years ago. we were putting down a 45% deposit of which 80% of it was mine. i wanted to make sure my deposit amount was safe if we ever decided to split. can't remember the name of the document though, its safe somewhere, i hope.

Eric Mc

124,064 posts

281 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
caymanjames said:
my gf and I signed a legal document when we bought our first place a couple of years ago. we were putting down a 45% deposit of which 80% of it was mine. i wanted to make sure my deposit amount was safe if we ever decided to split. can't remember the name of the document though, its safe somewhere, i hope.
Pre-nuptial?

It may or may not have a legal standing.

http://www.legal-advice-centre.co.uk/private/prenu...

anonymous-user

70 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
It's not as simple as that. If you split up and couldn't decide amicably how to split things and a court case ensued. The court would try and put a value on her contribution to the arrangement over the period of time she was with you. They could very well decide that her award would be Nil. Or they could award her tens of thousands. You just don't know until the sums are done and a court decides.
Hmmm... Her financial contributions have been towards 'consumables' only. For example food/electricity/holidays.

Every material item such as house/cars were bought outright by me, and I have receipts...

Surely all that is pretty cut and dried?

anonymous-user

70 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
This website is quite good:

http://www.advicenow.org.uk/living-together/

It seems to spell out the lack of rights to people who are unmarried but living in their partners house.

jonah35

Original Poster:

3,940 posts

173 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
provoked some debate here at least, mind you that's what a forum is for!

that website link is useful.

i myself never want to get married as I don't like the idea of staying with someone forever (at least at the moment) and have witnessed many a divorce which involves £££ and normally big arguments and so on.


Eric Mc

124,064 posts

281 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
NinjaPower said:
Eric Mc said:
It's not as simple as that. If you split up and couldn't decide amicably how to split things and a court case ensued. The court would try and put a value on her contribution to the arrangement over the period of time she was with you. They could very well decide that her award would be Nil. Or they could award her tens of thousands. You just don't know until the sums are done and a court decides.
Hmmm... Her financial contributions have been towards 'consumables' only. For example food/electricity/holidays.

Every material item such as house/cars were bought outright by me, and I have receipts...

Surely all that is pretty cut and dried?
Absolutely not. Her "Contributions" may be of a non-financial nature. For example, staying at home to look after the household (with or without children) would be looked on a "contribution". By her doing that, it could be held that this would free up your time to earn more. The former Arsenal footballer Ray Parlour found this to his cost.

Entering into a relationship with someone is more than just having someone nice around the house and doing fun things together. There is possibly a committment involved which a court will try and assess and put a value on if necessary.

Eric Mc

124,064 posts

281 months

Monday 22nd August 2011
quotequote all
jonah35 said:
provoked some debate here at least, mind you that's what a forum is for!

that website link is useful.

i myself never want to get married as I don't like the idea of staying with someone forever (at least at the moment) and have witnessed many a divorce which involves £££ and normally big arguments and so on.
I bet the girls like you smile