Unfair Contract ?

[SueEllen]

. What's the point of removing the distinction?

To make the lawyers richer as the disputes will be worse then splitting up asserts of married couples.

Unfortunately some people aren't aware that common law wife or husband is not recognised legally.

The proposal was to help long term cohabitees who set up home together than separated with everything in one person's name, or one partner (normally the woman) not working cos she was bringing up the kids.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

To make the lawyers richer as the disputes will be worse then splitting up asserts of married couples.

Unfortunately some people aren't aware that common law wife or husband is not recognised legally.

The proposal was to help long term cohabitees who set up home together than separated with everything in one person's name, or one partner (normally the woman) not working cos she was bringing up the kids.

No reason we should all suffer because a few people are ignorant. Although it does seem to be the prevailing "wisdom".

[expat]

As each partner can simply walk away from a common law marriage - I think that is the clincher.

When you say "common law marriage", do you mean common law marriage, or do you just mean 2 people living together as partners? Because if a situation is such that each partner can simply walk away from it, then it is not a marriage, common law or otherwise.

Many people do seem to use the phrase "common law marriage" as if it merely refers to any live-in couple. In English Common Law it was something more, possibly requiring to be established in any particular case. Anyway it's been off the books for years if not centuries: it belongs to history, not law. Scots Law had a similar concept but it wasn't called that; and it too has been abolished, in 2006.

So there is no such thing as common law marriage. That would make it easy to walk away from, I suppose.

[lilelvis2000]

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose I was using Canadian lingo there. But essentially I understood common law as cohabiting - but able to claim tax benefits of married couples. I also thought it took a while to be considered a couple and thus able to make the tax credit and other benefits.

Divorce laws do only apply to married couple right? Say? What about civil partnerships - they are legally married arn't they?

[SueEllen]

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose I was using Canadian lingo there. But essentially I understood common law as cohabiting - but able to claim tax benefits of married couples. I also thought it took a while to be considered a couple and thus able to make the tax credit and other benefits.

Divorce laws do only apply to married couple right? Say? What about civil partnerships - they are legally married arn't they?

Tax laws mostly concern inheritance, and they only apply to married couples and those in civil partnerships. Civil partnerships are commonly called "gay marriage" as they give basically the same rights to partners as married couples.

If you cohabit with someone you have no legal right to any of their processions if you split up except in a few cases*, no right to give consent for anything to do with them, no right to their pension and no rights to their estate on death. However the income shifting laws if they are implemented apply to cohabiting couples.

The law changed a few years back to give men parental consent if they had a child with a woman and where not married.

* The cases where you have a right to their processions occur when you can prove that you helped them build a home or with an investment. The onus is on you to prove this.

[Moscow Mule]

Common Law wifery has a legal bearing in ozzie IIRC.

And with that I'll not bother with any more TD games, half a rack will do tonight...

[Platypus]

Tax laws mostly concern inheritance, and they only apply to married couples and those in civil partnerships. Civil partnerships are commonly called "gay marriage" as they give basically the same rights to partners as married couples.

If you cohabit with someone you have no legal right to any of their processions if you split up except in a few cases*, no right to give consent for anything to do with them, no right to their pension and no rights to their estate on death. However the income shifting laws if they are implemented apply to cohabiting couples.

The law changed a few years back to give men parental consent if they had a child with a woman and where not married.

* The cases where you have a right to their processions occur when you can prove that you helped them build a home or with an investment. The onus is on you to prove this.

All that legalese, had me convinced until you mentioned processions TWICE !