"Common Law Wife" - a myth it seems...

dowie · 18 Jan 2011 at 21:25

Raymond Lin said:
I thought everybody knows this?!

me too

I'm rather astounded that people even thought that they did exist.

Even more worrying are the groups that campaign for 'common law marriages' to be given rights - surely that's what marriages/civil partnerships are for tbh...

The Halk · 18 Jan 2011 at 21:25

There was talk about changing this again.

Personally I'd like to see civil partnerships expanded, so that anyone can choose to join their lives together without the need to have a marriage.

Orcish-Horde · 18 Jan 2011 at 21:29

The Halk said:
There was talk about changing this again.

Personally I'd like to see civil partnerships expanded, so that anyone can choose to join their lives together without the need to have a marriage.

But how would you divide the point at which the choose to join their lives together? At the moment most people consider that to be at the point of marriage, reinventing the wheel.

The Halk · 18 Jan 2011 at 21:42

Orcish-Horde said:
But how would you divide the point at which the choose to join their lives together? At the moment most people consider that to be at the point of marriage, reinventing the wheel.

What do you mean? A civil partnership in law should be the same as a marriage.

Phoenixdancer · 18 Jan 2011 at 21:46

I would say That if the couple were together under the same roof for over 5 years without issue then they be classed as married by law...

Would make it SOO much cheaper for me as i have to pay for a wedding in a year lol.

(i actually want to get married though! wana see the missus walk down the thing.)

The Halk · 18 Jan 2011 at 21:48

Well, the point Phoenixdancer is that lots of people would say and the law would not say

Raymond Lin · 18 Jan 2011 at 21:49

The Halk said:
What do you mean? A civil partnership in law should be the same as a marriage.

it is the same, as in, it provides the same rights for the purpose of intestacy, taxes etc. That's what it is, it allows same sex couples the same rights AS married couples.

They brought in the Civil Partnerships Act because in English law, the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 says that a marriage can only be between a MAN and WOMAN. Hence it is impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And the definition of gender is dictate by the birth certificate. Since the birth certificate is a Historical document and you can't change history, so even after a sex change. You cannot marry a man to woman (who was previously a man).

You can however marry a man and man (who was born a woman). Technically speaking, probably not in a church but legally there is nothing to stop you.

The Halk · 18 Jan 2011 at 21:50

I said that in reply Raymond. I meant should as in "As I understand it to be" not "As I believe it should be changed to be". I think you picked me up wrong

Orcish-Horde · 18 Jan 2011 at 21:51

The Halk said:
What do you mean? A civil partnership in law should be the same as a marriage.

Sorry I misread your post, I some how replaced civil partnership with common law wife in my mind when reading your post.

Raymond Lin · 18 Jan 2011 at 22:02

The Halk said:
I said that in reply Raymond. I meant should as in "As I understand it to be" not "As I believe it should be changed to be". I think you picked me up wrong

ah

Domo · 18 Jan 2011 at 22:20

This surprised me:

There is one way in which you as part of an unmarried couple might have the same protection in financial disputes as married couples. Under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 an engaged couple who separate will have the protection of any law which relates to the property rights of husband and wives. All you need to show is that there was an "agreement to marry" and that this agreement has been broken.

-"Will you marry me...?"
-"Only if you sign this first"

The_Abyss · 18 Jan 2011 at 22:23

There is still provision for financial dependency, even if not married. I believe Scotland has now formalised this with a 2 year qualifying period.

shotgunshand · 18 Jan 2011 at 23:27

I've often wondered about this! Thanks for posting!

Lakeland · 18 Jan 2011 at 23:32

When I bought my house my solicitor told me that it was possible for someone to claim part of the value on a property if they could prove they had made a significant contribution towards the bills/upkeep

Narj · 19 Jan 2011 at 00:02

Lakeland said:
When I bought my house my solicitor told me that it was possible for someone to claim part of the value on a property if they could prove they had made a significant contribution towards the bills/upkeep

I think that this would only apply if they are paying towards repairs and general upkeep of the property to keep it in a habitable condition. Going by the article and that site, utility bills are not enough.

As for posts previous, I thought I'd do my duty, both in clearing it up for cohabiting couples and for those chaps that are worried about being taken to the cleaners by psycho ex-girlfriends, just because they granted you a pasty pass for a few years...