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.
im sure someone to confirm all we be along shortly after recovering from their hangover but:
i am almost certain that after a period (think its around 6months) the partner living there has similar rights as a wife. the 'law' was changed a few years back after more and more people not getting married and simply optin to live together instead.
i think your mate(s) are a little disillusioned.. !
i am almost certain that after a period (think its around 6months) the partner living there has similar rights as a wife. the 'law' was changed a few years back after more and more people not getting married and simply optin to live together instead.
i think your mate(s) are a little disillusioned.. !
Posted this on the other version of this thread which is on the "Finance Forum".
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".
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".
Eric Mc said:
Posted this on the other version of this thread which is on the "Finance Forum".
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".
Thanks eric, I knew you'd contribute. You are talking from a legal point of view so, In your expeience, would a judge award a large chunk of the assets to a 'moved in' partner?, even if they never contributed towards mortgage, council tax, etc?. I suppose what im trying to say is, has it ever been the case that an individual has lost 'half' his assets to a 'moved in' partner?. Imagaine a clued up gold-digger as a worst case scenario.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 judge would look at the overall contribution to the household by the claimant. And it need not be a monetary contribution either. Often, in the case of a woman, she will end up staying at home to look after children and run the household. Therefore, she cannot make a direct financial contribution herself. But a judge would certainly take all that into consideration when deciding how things should be divided up.
There is a world of difference between a couple who have been together a couple of months and a couple who have been together 30 years.
There is a world of difference between a couple who have been together a couple of months and a couple who have been together 30 years.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 1st January 17:33
Eric Mc said:
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.
Firstly, there is no such thing as access rights to children. Parents, married or unmarried, have no rights whatsoever to see their children. However, childen have rights to see their parents: big difference.Secondly, as long as the child is born on or after 1st December 2003, then both parents have automatic parental responsibility and as such can both apply to the Courts for a Contact Order and both have to be consulted on issues such as schools, doctors, health care etc. Pre-Dec 2003, if the father was unmarried at the time of the birth and if parental responsibility has not been agreed through Court, then the father will have problems with obtaining access to his children and cannot get involved in schools etc.
I'm glad this came up, I was about to ask a very similar question.
My girlfriend and I are thinking of moving into my flat (which has no mortgage, and has had no mortgage in all the time we have known each other). I was nervous that maybe she would gain some rights. I would prefer to avoid this, what are the ways of making sure if the worst happens that she cant claim anything.
She was going to pay half of the bills, council tax, water, gas, elec. Thats it... She also works, and there are no children involved.
Thanks
My girlfriend and I are thinking of moving into my flat (which has no mortgage, and has had no mortgage in all the time we have known each other). I was nervous that maybe she would gain some rights. I would prefer to avoid this, what are the ways of making sure if the worst happens that she cant claim anything.
She was going to pay half of the bills, council tax, water, gas, elec. Thats it... She also works, and there are no children involved.
Thanks
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff