Live in partners.
Discussion
Had a few bottles of the nice stuff last nite and a few semi heated discussions with various mates. They are all early 30's, have mortgages, and have at some point moved thier GF's into thier house, and its been like that for about 3 years.Two are now expecting a baby with thier partners. None are married though. I know there are some pretty clued up indivduals on here, but what is the absolute, definitive answer to 'moving a female into your place'?. The converstaion ran something like, 'Oh well my Gf cant take anyhthing iv got If we split, because its my house, I pay the mortgage, she pays a few bits, Iv checked with my solicitor, Il be ok'. With an imminent baby due, Im not convinced. Does a 'moved in' partner have any share of 'the house' after a few years there?. Seems to be a lot of hearsay bandied about on this one, and not much legal fact.
There are different types of laws that govern how things are dealt with when couples split. These laws differ depending on whether the couple are formally married or are "merely" living together.
The areas of law which cover these situations are
taxation
succession on death of one or both individuals in the couple
property
banking laws
child laws
pension rights
When a couple is married, there are some aspects of the law which kick in automatically. If one of the married couple feels that they are not getting their fair share of the spoils, that individual will have an automatic right in law to seek redress in a court of law. The judge would be guided by what the statute law advises or instructs.
Non-married couples have no such automatic rights in law to each other's assets.
Therefore, if a relationship breaks down, there would be no automatic split of any of their respective assets between the couple.
However, an aggrieved party can apply to the courts for a share of the assets on a break up. In this case, the judge will not have any statute law to guide or instruct him but he will be able to use his ability as a judge and a review of prceding case law to come to a conclusion as to who gets what.
So, all is not lost regarding making a claim but the outcome of such claims is less predictable compared to the "married" situation.
The situation regarding tax is generally that married couples are in a much better position to make use of tax allowances of various sorts - especially on assets disposals and inheritance tax matters.
Another problem area for non-married couples is access rights to children. My impression is that unmarried fathers have a tougher time getting access rights to their children compared to fathers who were married to the mother.
When children arrive on the scene, being married, from a purely legal point of view, tends to be a better situation all around - especially for the mothers and the children. Many "modern" dads I think prefer to stay unmarried as this keeps them at arms length, legally, from some of their responsibilties. However, the advent of the CSA and other family legislation over the past 20 odd years has lessened the abil;ity of dads to walk away from these responsibilities.
The downside is that some dads find themselves being denied access - but being stung for large sums of money. This is one of the reasons why we have seen the growth of pressure groups such as "Fathers 4 Justice".
The areas of law which cover these situations are
taxation
succession on death of one or both individuals in the couple
property
banking laws
child laws
pension rights
When a couple is married, there are some aspects of the law which kick in automatically. If one of the married couple feels that they are not getting their fair share of the spoils, that individual will have an automatic right in law to seek redress in a court of law. The judge would be guided by what the statute law advises or instructs.
Non-married couples have no such automatic rights in law to each other's assets.
Therefore, if a relationship breaks down, there would be no automatic split of any of their respective assets between the couple.
However, an aggrieved party can apply to the courts for a share of the assets on a break up. In this case, the judge will not have any statute law to guide or instruct him but he will be able to use his ability as a judge and a review of prceding case law to come to a conclusion as to who gets what.
So, all is not lost regarding making a claim but the outcome of such claims is less predictable compared to the "married" situation.
The situation regarding tax is generally that married couples are in a much better position to make use of tax allowances of various sorts - especially on assets disposals and inheritance tax matters.
Another problem area for non-married couples is access rights to children. My impression is that unmarried fathers have a tougher time getting access rights to their children compared to fathers who were married to the mother.
When children arrive on the scene, being married, from a purely legal point of view, tends to be a better situation all around - especially for the mothers and the children. Many "modern" dads I think prefer to stay unmarried as this keeps them at arms length, legally, from some of their responsibilties. However, the advent of the CSA and other family legislation over the past 20 odd years has lessened the abil;ity of dads to walk away from these responsibilities.
The downside is that some dads find themselves being denied access - but being stung for large sums of money. This is one of the reasons why we have seen the growth of pressure groups such as "Fathers 4 Justice".
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff