An Apology : Dear Marge...

**widgetdance** · 29 June 2005, 07:30

I dont think I am wrong.
I asked you what the equivelant status was to "common law wife" which you quite rightly said didnt exist.
You then went on to say that (in this case) the woman had no rights and should have got married to get them.

The answer being that the courts can decide that a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife and can grant a share to each partner when they split up.
Which in my book equates to common law status as was.

You insisted that the only way either party is entitled to a share is if they were married. This simply isnt true as proven by the papaer I googled and posted.

So though you were right that the status is no longer recognised, the entitlement still is and is enforcable in a court of law.

In other words, you were wrong.

**SupremeSpod** · 29 June 2005, 07:39

The answer being that the courts can decide that a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife and can grant a share to each partner when they split up.

Yes, the courts can decide, it is not a right per se, it is for the court to decide.

I'm afraid you're wrong on this one WD.

Further more...

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So cohabitees are no longer regarded as behaving as a married couple and treated in law accordingly?
Why then all the fuss about gay marriage and equality for inheritance and property shares etc?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly... You want the benefits of marriage, get married!

The above was my response to your question. In marriage you have certain rights, in cohabitation you may go to court and ask them to adjudicate.

There is no "Common Law" regarding cohabitation.

**widgetdance** · 29 June 2005, 07:50

I dont believe I ever said it was a "right".

You did say that if she wanted the benefits of marriage she should get married.

I posted a link to a document "Cohabitees, Your Rights" which clearly states that my assertion "if she has made a contribution she is entitled to a share" is true.

Where do you get the idea that I am wrong?

**SupremeSpod** · 29 June 2005, 07:54

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So cohabitees are no longer regarded as behaving as a married couple and treated in law accordingly?
Why then all the fuss about gay marriage and equality for inheritance and property shares etc?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly... You want the benefits of marriage, get married!

I simply answered your question.

**SupremeSpod** · 29 June 2005, 07:58

What? I think you will find you are at the opposite end of the spectrum to correct this time Spod, a humble apology might not go amiss

The above is what you did wrong.

**widgetdance** · 29 June 2005, 08:08

Now I know it is difficult to understand, but the courts do not make an arbitrary decision based on some notion worked up during the proceedings, what the courts do is pass judgement based on the reality of the situation (the rights of the individual in question). Based on the law of the land, a common law applicable to all.

If the courts decide you are entitled to a share in the property, then that entitlement existed prior to going to court, it is just that one of the parties disagreed and needed a legal decision.
The right to a share does not appear magically during the court case, it always existed.

If a partner in a cohabitee situation has made a material contribution then they are entitled to a share of properties related to that situation whether they go to court or not!
The only reason a court has to decide is when the other party disputes that a material contribution has been made.

The only thing I was wrong about was using the term common law wife which I did not insist was correct, and even asked what the up to date term was, only to find there is no term.

You clearly stated that there were no entitlements outside marriage, clearly wrong!

**SupremeSpod** · 29 June 2005, 08:26

You don't see it do you?

I merely stated that the status or title of common law wife does not exist.

Furthermore when you posted your two rhetorical questions I answered with "Exactly... You want the benefits of marriage, get married!".

You then posted a request for me to apologise. The information that I personally have posted is correct.

Now stop being a @#%$ and apologise like a good person should.

**fiddleabout** · 29 June 2005, 10:44

Is this a private argument or can anybody join in?

**SupremeSpod** · 29 June 2005, 10:49

Join in by all means.

An Apology : Dear Marge...