16
ISSUES: Marriage
Chapter 1: Marriage
couple lived together. This means
that if you cannot agree about
who owns any household goods,
the law will assume that you both
own it jointly and must share it or
share what it is worth;
Ö
Ö
an equal share in money derived
from an allowance made by one or
other of the couple for household
expenses and/or any property
bought out of that money. It is
important to understand that this
does not apply to the house that
the couple live in;
Ö
Ö
financial provision when, as a
result of the decisions the couple
made
together
during
the
relationship, one partner has been
financially disadvantaged. This
means, for example, if the couple
decided that one partner would
give up a career to look after their
children, they can ask the court
to look at the effect that decision
had on that partner’s ability to
earn money after the relationship
has ended;
Ö
Ö
an assumption that both parents
will continue to share the cost
of childcare if they had children
together; and
Ö
Ö
a right to apply to the court for an
award from the estate (property) if
their partner dies without leaving
a will. Before this, if a cohabiting
partner died without leaving a
will the surviving partner was
not entitled to anything from
the deceased partner’s estate.
Sometimes this meant that they
had to move out of the house
they had lived in together. The
surviving partner will now be able
to ask the court to consider giving
them something from the estate.
If the deceased partner was still
married at the time of death, the
spouse will still be legally entitled
to a share of the estate.
This article was contributed to by
Richard Busby, Family Law solicitor
and Partner, Fisher Meredith.
Ö
Ö
The above information is reprinted
with kind permission from Family
Lives. Please visit
org.uk for further information.
© Family Lives 2017
Common-law marriage myth highlights
desperate need for reform
An article from
The Conversation
.
By Helen Jenks, Associate Professor, The University of Law
Y
our common-law wife and
husband do not exist.
Next month will see the latest
stage in the latest attempt to improve
the legal standing for people that live
together but choose not to marry.
With nearly six million unmarried
couples living outside marriage or
a civil partnership in the UK, there
is a real urgency for legal clarity for
cohabitants who find themselves
separating.
Not least, because of the persistence of
the so called “common-law marriage
myth” where assumptions still remain
that if you live with a partner for a set
amount of time you automatically gain
a right to certain financial remedies in
the event of separation. This is simply
not the case.
In
February
2013,
the
charity
OnePlusOne found that 47% of UK
citizens aged between 18 and 34
mistakenly assumed that cohabiting
couples have the same legal rights as
their married counterparts. This was a
dismal improvement from the British
Social Attitudes survey in 2008 which
foundthat51%ofrespondentsbelieved
that the common-law marriage myth
was real, despite campaigns to dispel
the misunderstanding.
It’s no surprise then, that lawyers are
painfully familiar with people referring
to their common-law wife or husband
when in fact this doesn’t exist in any
legal sense.
Although couples can use cohabitation
contracts to set out their legal position,
few couples actually take advantage
of them due to the lack of knowledge
about their rights. And if they do have
to rely on a contract in the event of
the relationship breaking down, then
the court can only deal with it the way
it would any other contract – which
does not lend itself to resolving such
family disputes. If cohabiting couples
are to be treated fairly, then reform is
needed to properly clarify their legal
position.
A long, long road
Previous attempts at a fix have
failed. In 2007 the Law Commission
published a report calling for reform
and in December 2008 Lord Lester
introduced a Private Members’ Bill
to address the issue. It failed to even
pass the committee stage. In 2011
the Law Commission reiterated its
call for reform after the Government
published a statement announcing
their intention not to take the matter
further.
Practising barrister and peer, Jonathan
Marks QC, is the latest contender
seeking to bring about change in the
rights of cohabitants, by introducing
another Private Members’ Bill to
settle the issue. The Bill was read last
October and is set to be reintroduced
in June this year.
The Bill seeks to allow couples who
live together (including those with
children) and those who have lived
together for a continuous period of
two years or more to be able to seek
similar rights to those that married
couples are already awarded in the
divorce courts. The Bill has the caveat
that either individual applying must
have suffered either an economic
disadvantage, or their ex-partner has
retained a benefit.
