Reply to: An Apology : Dear Marge...

Actually....

There is no "Common Law" regarding cohabitation.

There is. But only in Scotland.

www.scotland.gov.uk/libra...rfl-03.asp

Re: Spod!

if you're interested ask someone you know locally who's a Mason. Failing that, write a letter to your local lodge - address in 'phonebook.

Thanks, Spod. I don't know anyone, but I'll have a look and see what I can find.

Re: Spod!

WS, have you got a second-hand apron?

But seriously, if you're interested ask someone you know locally who's a Mason. Failing that, write a letter to your local lodge - address in 'phonebook. If you're really serious PM me and I'll track down a lodge that is local to you.

Spod!

Spoddy, what about the Lodge!? I have a trouser leg that is dying to be lifted.

See - it wasn't hard was it? - apology accepted.

Sorry Fiddle, what I should have said was "No, stay the feck out of it, it's none of your concern!"

Spod - In "There's nothing for you here" mode!

> Join in by all means.

WELL - if you're going to be like that about it I won't - not until you apologise.

Spod, any chance of getting an invite to your Lodge? I'm prepared to serve tea and scones with clotted cream and jam.

Join in by all means.

Is this a private argument or can anybody join in?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?