'Breaking up is never easy' - Not bike related at all

This is an article I wrote for the women's page of the local rag on the unfairness of what happens if you live together and split up. Thought you might enjoy it.

If not appropriate for the org no doubt a mod will delete it.


'Breaking up is never easy

People who live together split up all the time. It’s not just the rich and famous, people who make the headlines, it happens to lots of people. When you’re married it’s bad enough, but if you’re not you might get a nasty shock. Who gets the house? The law is unclear, it creaks to keep up with modern living, and, generally, it fails. After years of apparent security, people can be out on their ear. And with 4 million people living together, and 42% of children born to people who aren’t married, it’s an increasing problem.

‘Common law spouses’ aren’t spouses at all, the law doesn’t recognise the relationship. The result can be unfair. If they didn’t legally own anything then people will struggle to salvage anything. Take Mrs Burns. She lived with her ‘common law husband’ for 20 years, bringing up the children. But when they split up she got nothing. The courts said that domestic input and raising the children didn’t count. Only direct money payments will do, like paying some of the deposit, or the mortgage. Looking after the home so that her ‘husband’ could work meant nothing. This was 1985, but the result today would be the same.

True, you might be able to live in the property for a while, but this is only temporary. If the couple were in rented, then one might get a transfer of the tenancy.

The same applies to gay couples, too.

If you’re married, or in a civil partnership, well it’s so different. The courts have wide powers to settle financial and property matters. Mrs Burns would have been so much better off with a ring on her finger. But otherwise the gains and losses lie where they fall, generally with no entitlement to financial provision, or a pension.

The Law Commission has published a paper on reform. It recognises that people who live together and who have children behave similarly to married people. Typically, she will stop work to have children, relying on his financial contributions. You might get indirect protection on the back of financial orders for the children. But the law frowns on this, and the orders available aren’t desperately helpful to a ‘common law spouse.’ The Commission thinks this unfair, and proposes a raft of measures to redress the balance.

And if there are no children, well the law has no answer. You can live together for years, merge your assets, and be financially interdependent, but there’s no financial remedy when it all goes pear-shaped.

So what should you do? If you contribute to the property, get your interest recorded in a deed of trust. Your solicitor can prepare this. Typically setting out ownership shares, you can put in mortgage contributions, and even say when the property should be sold. But with finances, there’s little you can do. This might be OK in a short relationship, but it works hard on people like Mrs Burns.

Reform is long overdue.'

Ed

That is true. My last relationship ended badly, i ended up pretty much giving her everything to get rid of her.

Still started fresh and am in a much better situation.

Am I right in thinking that if you are joint tenants on the deeds of the property, you automatically own (or inherit) your half but if you are tenants in common then your half goes to your next of kin have I got that correct? (Trying to remember my Land Law studies!)

My OH and I are Joint Tenants and we have wills leaving our worldly goods (our bikes and thats about it ha ha) to each other to avoid any next of kin wrangles - is that sufficient do you think or should we just get married (after 22 years) and have a huge knees up?

Originally Posted by mumstoy

...do you think or should we just get married (after 22 years) and have a huge knees up?

Gawd! Yes pull your finger out Laura and get the job done .

Originally Posted by Ed

If not appropriate for the org no doubt a mod will delete it.

Nope, a good informative article Ed, no slush, just helpful info that will (sadly) be useful to some folks.


.

Originally Posted by mumstoy

Am I right in thinking that if you are joint tenants on the deeds of the property, you automatically own (or inherit) your half but if you are tenants in common then your half goes to your next of kin have I got that correct? (Trying to remember my Land Law studies!)

My OH and I are Joint Tenants and we have wills leaving our worldly goods (our bikes and thats about it ha ha) to each other to avoid any next of kin wrangles - is that sufficient do you think or should we just get married (after 22 years) and have a huge knees up?

Joint tenants - both own, but in undivided and uncrystallised shares - it's like a cloud, you can see it but if you go to grab it there's nothing to get hold of. Tenancy in common - both own, in crystallised and identified shares, eg 50/50, 60/40. In a joint tenancy the crucial factor is the right of survivorship - the surviving JT takes it, irrespective of what the deceased JT says in their will. In a TIC there is no such right and the deceased's share has to go through a probate process. There are lots of reasons for preferring one over the other, too much to go into here, typically people married to each other would go for a JT rather than a TIC but not necessarily - eg if it's a second mariage and they have kids from previous ones, they might want to preserve unequal capital contributions for the benefit of their respective children.

In your case Laura the JT means that the right of survivorship applies and the property will never form part of the estate in the first place. So if the family start poking their noses in, it's irrelevant cos your 'share' in the property passes automatically outside the will.

I've heard of relationships breaking up recently where the woman's been cheating and still cleaned the bloke out...

and people wonder why I stay single

not that i've got anything for em to get

What ever happened to the taking turns in picking items when breaking up? Far more democratic than this namby pamby interfering law business!

Originally Posted by Peter Henry

What ever happened to the taking turns in picking items when breaking up? Far more democratic than this namby pamby interfering law business!

Beyond that, whatever happened to a truely amicable split and staying friends?

No?

Oh, must just be me then.

Both of my 'long termers' (7 & 6 yrs) ended amicably - even despite the first one giving serious consideration to cheating - as retaining a friendship was more important that cultivating bitterness.


Good useful info there though Ed.

My thoughts exactly K.

When me and my hubby broke up, because I had the girls (2 & 6 months old at the time) I stayed in the house (rented). He left and got his own place so we just split everything amicably.

I know some people don't/can't do amicable but I'm all for talking and getting things sorted out nicely. It's much better for you and much better for the kids (if you have any)

I know of a case (a friend of mine) who had children with her husband (he is 17 years older than her) but because she wanted to work he stayed at home with the children. When her father died, what she inherited she paid off her mortgage with. Then she and hubby decided to split. Because he wasn't working the courts told her that he had little or no chance of finding another job at his age (55) so she had to remortgage, giving him £65,000. She had to take on all the debts because they were all in her name because she was the earner. She is now struggling on her own with a £70,000 mortgage whilst he sits on his ar*e, in rented accomodation and because he isn't working he only has to give her £40 per month for maintenance! The courts weren't interested in the fact that she paid off the mortgage with her father's money.

For once it's justice gone mad.

Some useful info none the less tho Ed, but I think every case is individual.