Ed

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