Civil Partnership Bill causing me worry about my relationship

LegacyUser

Note to mods:
This isn't an LGBT issue - I'm hetrosexual.
Also, I'm posting in PI because this definitely affects my relationship, and because of the circumstances I need to post unregged.


I looked through the Civil Partnership Bill which was published yesterday, and it's causing me some relationship stress.
My situation is, I'm in a fairly committed long term relationship.
We've been living together for more than 3 years. We love each other, and don't see other people.
But we're both quite young. I don't think either of us intends to have children for quite a few years yet.

I particularly believe that things can change in a relationship, particularly when you are quite young, at the age when people are moving around, trying to find what they want to do etc. I've seen friends, who had lived together for several years, who went their separate ways.

One of us - I don't want to say which one - has substantially more savings than the other. Just been working for longer, as opposed to doing further study.
We think of and manage our financial affairs separately, but we're pretty informal about it. Sometimes one person buys the milk - or pays the rent. But we roughly keep track of who has paid what, and make sure it's almost equal. Over the years if one of us was out of work, the other person might pay a little more rent for a while, but our understanding always is that we're separate people, we're young, and we mightn't be together forever, so we want to remain financially independent.


But then they publish this bill. A friend warned me about it, so I read the actual section of the bill itself, and it seems to say that people like us who live together like us, will in effect 'be married' in terms of our financial independence. If we broke up, the poorer person could come after the person with more savings, for money to support them. There doesn't seem to be anything we can do to avoid this! I really don't want this at all! It's not at all our I, or from what I know, my OH, thinks about this.

The newspapers say that this bill being published means it's in effect law, or could come into effect really soon.

I'm a little bit worried about this - I don't know what to do. I definitely don't feel ready to commit, to looking after my OH financially, if they were unable to find work etc. I'd be happy to do it for a while, but I don't want to sign in to doing it forever, in case we just want to go our separate ways.

I'm worried that this is going to become law. Should we take a break or one of us move out for a while to avoid the 3 year limit? Perhaps I should move out for a bit, so we're not cohabiting for the required amount of time? I'm worried that this would negatively affect my relationship though, and cause extra stress.

I'm a bit confused about what to do, and I'm a bit angry at the government for bringing this up all of a sudden.
I can't be the only person who is young, and living with boyfriend/girlfriend but isn't ready to commit.
What do other people think? Do you think your OH would understand if you wanted to move out for a bit to avoid being classed as cohabitants? Or it is unreasonable of me to suggest something like this? Like, my OH are well capable of talking about this sort of thing, trust each other etc, but relationships can change, and just feel too young for this sort of commitment. Obviously, we'll talk about this, but would like advice from other people in same situation... A bit angry too, don't see what gives government the right to force me to commit to someone, don't even have kids.

Astrogeek

That's crazy. Surely the government can't pass something like that. Who's to say two friends couldn't be living together for more than three years? Or two people could just happen to be sharing a house for three or four years for college for example!
Surely you would have to sign something to show that you were in a relationship? I haven't heard anything about this. Just doesn't sound practical.

Antilles

OP what section of the bill do you think means the government will force you into a commitment? I've heard nothing of the sort from anyone else, including LGBT friends, and the idea seems far-fetched tbh. I'm about to go read it now (just need to downloada PDF reader!), but right now I'd say its far more likely you have misinterpreted the legislation.

Chinafoot

You need to register your civil partnership. It doesn't just automatically happen once you pass the three year mark.

LegacyUser

It's not wrong.

From todays Independent:
"The new bill also contains a separate scheme for same-sex and heterosexual couples who are living in long-term committed relationships.

These couples, who must have lived together for three years, will be regarded as "qualified cohabitants" by the courts and not have to register their relationships."


Or, if you just read section 15 of the Bill, you'll see it's the same.

Antilles

Unregistered wrote: »

Or, if you just read section 15 of the Bill, you'll see it's the same.

I just downloaded the bill from http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2004/5404/b5404s.pdf - it only has 14 sections, or am I looking at the wrong document?

Chinafoot

Unregistered wrote: »

It's not wrong.

From todays Independent:
"The new bill also contains a separate scheme for same-sex and heterosexual couples who are living in long-term committed relationships.

These couples, who must have lived together for three years, will be regarded as "qualified cohabitants" by the courts and not have to register their relationships."


Or, if you just read section 15 of the Bill, you'll see it's the same.

But surely this is in relation to joint property and children. If you and your partner are renting your home and are financially separate what are you freaking out about? The law is not going to regard you as "married" if you have not registered your civil partnership and have no joint assets or children. The bill is giving extra rights and protection to co-habiting couples who have shared finances, property and responsibilities. You don't so your partner is not going to be able to come after you to support her if you break up and you have no children.

LegacyUser

Antilles wrote: »

I just downloaded the bill from http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2004/5404/b5404s.pdf - it only has 14 sections, or am I looking at the wrong document?

Yes. You are looking at the 2004 Bill, as it says at the top of the document you linked to.

You want the 2009 Bill, part 15:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d.pdf


Link to Independent article as well, see the last paragraph.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/both-sides-of-the--fence-unhappy--with-legislation-1793437.html


But I'm more concerned with advice on my personal situation, rather than debating the legalities.

LegacyUser

Chinafoot wrote: »

But surely this is in relation to joint property and children. If you and your partner are renting your home and are financially separate what are you freaking out about? The law is not going to regard you as "married" if you have not registered your civil partnership and have no joint assets or children. The bill is giving extra rights and protection to co-habiting couples who have shared finances, property and responsibilities. You don't so your partner is not going to be able to come after you to support her if you break up and you have no children.

No, it's not just with regard to joint property and children.
If you just read part 15, you'll see that quite clearly.

It very much might affect my relationship.

Basically, in my situation, my OH would be able, if our relationship ended, to apply for maintenance, if they were financially dependent on me in any way (eg, I paid more rent, or maybe even if I just had a higher salary). Or vicea versa. It's the same as if you were married.

To show it's not just property, here is one of the orders the court could make, just like in a separation:
"an order that either of the cohabitants make to the other the periodical payments in the amounts, during the period and at the times that may be specified in the order"


Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, just a normal person who isn't afraid to read the law when it affects them, and obviously all this will be subject to court interpretation, but my point is that it might introduce a lot of uncertainty and complexity into my relationship, which I really don't want. I don't know how the courts will interpret this fairly broad law, and I really don't want to make these commitments at this time. I think this is reasonable.

How do other people in similar situations feel, or can you provide any advice?

Antilles

Chinafoot wrote: »

But surely this is in relation to joint property and children. If you and your partner are renting your home and are financially separate what are you freaking out about? The law is not going to regard you as "married" if you have not registered your civil partnership and have no joint assets or children. The bill is giving extra rights and protection to co-habiting couples who have shared finances, property and responsibilities. You don't so your partner is not going to be able to come after you to support her if you break up and you have no children.

(I was reading the 2004 bill, not the current one - oops!)

I'm with Chinafoot on this one. There is nothing in the bill to suggest you will be forced to support your future ex as if you had been married. Its about recognising people's rights, not punishing them for living together. I'm intrigued as to what specific text you think says otherwise (handwaving and insisting "oh, its in there" doesn't count).

To be honest, your misreading of the bill suggests to me that there are issues in your relationship that you mightn't have been aware of (the issue could be that you have a sh*t-stirring friend). Now that you are aware of them, best of look sorting them out.

LegacyUser

"
I'm with Chinafoot on this one. There is nothing in the bill to suggest you will be forced to support your future ex as if you had been married. Its about recognising people's rights, not punishing them for living together. I'm intrigued as to what specific text you think says otherwise (handwaving and insisting "oh, its in there" doesn't count).

To be honest, your misreading of the bill suggests to me that there are issues in your relationship that you mightn't have been aware of (the issue could be that you have a sh*t-stirring friend). Now that you are aware of them, best of look sorting them out."


Look, I really appreciate you taking the time to reply.

However, you couldn't possibly have read the Bill between your replies, and so I don't think it's fair of you to talk on about my misreading of the Bill, or that it suggests I have relationship issues. That's fairly tenuous at the best of times.

I don't want to turn this into a legal discussion.

To clear this up once and for all, I include the text of the relevant section of the bill, with is part 15. I've left out the bits that I'm not directly concerned about, which does abridge the text somewhat. The original text is at the link I provided for the 2009 Bill.

It's pretty clear from the text underneath that cohabiting partners are subject to much of the same rights and responsibilities as married partners.
This should make it obvious that I have not, in fact, misread the Bill. This should also cure any doubt in your mind that I'm 'handwaving' or scaremongering.

This is a genuine issue that genuinely affects me, and I'd like to move off the legal discussion after this post, if at all possible.



"For the purposes of this Part, a cohabitant is one of 2
adults (whether of the same or the opposite sex) who live together
as a couple in an intimate and committed relationship and who are
not related to each other within the prohibited degrees of relation-
ship or married to each other or civil partners of each other.

For the avoidance of doubt a relationship does not cease to
be an intimate relationship for the purpose of this section merely
because it is no longer sexual in nature.

If the qualified cohabitant satisfies the court that he or she is
financially dependent on the other cohabitant and that the financial
dependence arises from the relationship or the ending of the
relationship, the court may, if satisfied that it is just and equitable to
do so in all the circumstances, make the order concerned.

In determining whether or not it is just and equitable to make
an order in all the circumstances, the court shall have regard to

(e) the duration of the parties’ relationship, the basis on which
the parties entered into the relationship and the degree
of commitment of the parties to one another,
(f) the contributions that each of the cohabitants made or is
40
likely to make in the foreseeable future to the welfare of
the cohabitants or either of them including any contri-
bution made by each of them to the income, earning
capacity or property and financial resources of the other,
(g) any contributions made by either of them in looking after
the home,

(h) the effect on the earning capacity of each of the cohabi-
tants of the responsibilities assumed by each of them dur-
ing the period they lived together as a couple and the
degree to which the future earning capacity of a qualified
cohabitant is impaired by reason of that qualified cohabi- 5
tant having relinquished or foregone the opportunity of
remunerative activity in order to look after the home,
(i) any physical or mental disability of the qualified cohabi-
tant, and
(j) the conduct of each of the cohabitants, if the conduct is 10
such that, in the opinion of the court, it would be unjust
to disregard it.

The court, on application to it in that behalf by the
qualified cohabitant, may, during the lifetime of either of the cohabi-
tants, make one or more of the following orders:

(a) an order that either of the cohabitants make to the other
the periodical payments in the amounts, during the
period and at the times that may be specified in the order;

(b) an order that either of the cohabitants secure to the other,
to the satisfaction of the court, the periodical payments
of the amounts, during the period and at the times that
may be specified in the order; and

(c) an order that either of the cohabitants make to the other
a lump sum payment or lump sum payments of the
amount or amounts and at the time or times that may be
specified in the order.
"

Chinafoot

Unregistered wrote: »

But I'm more concerned with advice on my personal situation, rather than debating the legalities.

But do you not see that "the legalities" are what is relevant to your personal situation?

In previous years co-habiting couples in longterm relationships with joint assets did not have the same level of protection under the law as married couples. This Bill is an attempt to afford those couples more protection, its especially important when it comes to property. I think in previous years people had to be together 7 years, now it's three. Personally I wholeheartedly agree with it, I only wish the bill went further.

The Indo wrote:

These couples, who must have lived together for three years, or two years if they have a child together, will be regarded as "qualified cohabitants" by the courts and do not have to register their relationships.

This means that should something happen, for example the couple have an acrimonious break-up, and there are joint assets involved both parties may be protected. One side can use the law to protect themselves after the fact and won't be told "No sorry, you didn't register your partnership, you get absolutely nothing." But again, and this is what you don't seem to be understanding, if you have no joint assets or children this bill isn't going to allow your ex to screw you over for money.

Your personal situations consists of
3 years living together
No joint property
No children
Financially independent


You have passed the 3 year mark and could register your relationship if you wanted to. You don't want to and have nothing that needs protecting (like a house) so what is the issue?

To be completely honest with you, I'd be less concerned about the finances and more concerned about the fatalistic attitude you have to this relationship.

username932

I've regged an account to post on this thread, so I don't keep annoying the mods with replies, and so that my replies get through in a timely fashion.

Antilles wrote: »

I'm with Chinafoot on this one. There is nothing in the bill to suggest you will be forced to support your future ex as if you had been married. Its about recognising people's rights, not punishing them for living together. I'm intrigued as to what specific text you think says otherwise (handwaving and insisting "oh, its in there" doesn't count).

Antilles, thanks for taking an interest and replying, I appreciate it. However, from your reply, I don't think you've read the Bill.
The specific text is in Part 15, as I've said, and it's clear to read.

Chinafoot wrote:

But do you not see that "the legalities" are what is relevant to your personal situation?

Yes, I do see that. I guess I didn't want to get into an involved discussion on the legal issues here.
However, as I'm clearly not going to make any progress without showing that I have not misread the Bill, I will do so now.

Chinafoot wrote:

You have passed the 3 year mark and could register your relationship if you wanted to. You don't want to and have nothing that needs protecting (like a house) so what is the issue?

From my reading of the Bill, as well as the friend that referred me to it, this is patently incorrect. I will illustrate that in just a moment.

Chinafoot wrote:

To be completely honest with you, I'd be less concerned about the finances and more concerned about the fatalistic attitude you have to this relationship.

There is nothing fatalistic in my attitude about my relationship.
On the contrary, I am proactively seeking to address these issues.
Nor am I overly concerned about the finances.
As I stated in my original post, I simply don't want to make a commitment forever, and forever bind my finances to my OH; I'd be more fatalistic if I was not thinking about this, and quite happy to ignore things and not deal with these issues until I had a relationship breakup.

I don't forsee a breakup, but that doesn't mean I can't make sure we're not in a bad and undesirable situation if one should happen.
By your logic, everyone in a relationship that they thought would last should be quite happy to get married, as otherwise their being 'fatalistic'.

Antilles wrote: »

To be honest, your misreading of the bill suggests to me that there are issues in your relationship that you mightn't have been aware of (the issue could be that you have a sh*t-stirring friend). Now that you are aware of them, best of look sorting them out.

Antilles, I'm pretty sure I didn't misread the Bill, as I'll now explain.
I'd also put it to you, that while I'm very grateful for your replies, going by the timestamps between your messages, you couldn't posibly have read the Bill in that time period.

Chinafoot wrote:

But again, and this is what you don't seem to be understanding, if you have no joint assets or children this bill isn't going to allow your ex to screw you over for money.

Again, Chinafoot, this is not correct.
I would point out that from your earlier replies, you weren't even aware of the existence of the 'co-habition' section - I would implore you to read this section, if you have not done so, before posting critical replies.


Anyway, to clarify this.
From the Bill:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d.pdf

and abridging this slightly (leaving out some of the non relevant bits - feel free to read all of part 15 at that link for completeness).

For the purposes of this Part, a cohabitant is one of 2
adults (whether of the same or the opposite sex) who live together
as a couple in an intimate and committed relationship and who are 15
not related to each other within the prohibited degrees of relation-
ship or married to each other or civil partners of each other.

For the purposes of this Part, a qualified cohabitant means an
adult who was in a relationship of cohabitation with another adult
and who, immediately before the time that that relationship ended,
whether through death or otherwise, was living with the other adult
as a couple for a period of 3 years or more, in any other case.

Ok, so two people living together, in a 'committed relationship', unrelated, for 3 or more years.
No registration neccessary.

If the qualified cohabitant satisfies the court that he or she is
financially dependent on the other cohabitant and that the financial
dependence arises from the relationship or the ending of the
relationship, the court may, if satisfied that it is just and equitable to
do so in all the circumstances, make the order concerned.

So, basically, if one cohabitant says they were dependent on the other, then the court can make an order.
They define this dependence in many ways.
Here are some of them:

(f) the contributions that each of the cohabitants made or is
likely to make in the foreseeable future to the welfare of
the cohabitants or either of them including any contri-
bution made by each of them to the income, earning
capacity or property and financial resources of the other,

So, if you've given money or financial resources, or use of property to your OH in the past.

the effect on the earning capacity of each of the cohabi-
tants of the responsibilities assumed by each of them dur-
ing the period they lived together as a couple and the
degree to which the future earning capacity of a qualified
cohabitant is impaired by reason of that qualified cohabitant having relinquished or foregone the opportunity of
remunerative activity in order to look after the home

Or if one of the cohabitants, in the view of the court, could be thought to give up earning capacity to look after the home.
Just like as if you are married. And this is all subject to interpretation of the courts.

So, what are these 'Orders' that the court can make?

An order under this section may provide for one or
more of the following matters:
the transfer by either of the cohabitants to or for the
benefit of the other, of specified property in which the
cohabitant has an interest either in possession or
reversion;

...

an order that either of the cohabitants make to the other
the periodical payments in the amounts, during the
period and at the times that may be specified in the order;

Etc.
Basically, full maintance, property, monetary sums, either once off or recurring, etc.
Essentially, the courts get broad discretion, just like as if you were married.

It's patently clear from those sections, which are extremely easy to read, that things apply very much as in marriage.
You don't have to have shared property or shared assets, you just have to have been found, in the past, to have supported each other financially, in some very nebulous and intangible way, that is subject to the intrepretation of the courts.

So, this obviously muddies the waters substantially, and greatly affects the degree of my relationship as well as the relationships of others who happen to have lived together for 3 years, and cannot show that they are finanically independent, to the satisifaction of the court, whatever that may mean.


Anyway, I am not a lawyer, and so am not qualified to give an intrepretation of the law, but it seems abundantly clear to me that what Chinafoot and Antillies have said is untrue, and that my original concerns, addressed in my original post, stand.

I'm not some paranoid nut, just a very normal person, in a normal relationship, young, and not yet ready for life long financial commitment.
I'm unhappy about this legislation, and would like to know how other people feel about this, and get advice on my situation.

Thanks all.

Chinafoot

username932 wrote: »

I'm not some paranoid nut, just a very normal person, in a normal relationship, young, and not yet ready for life long financial commitment.
I'm unhappy about this legislation, and would like to know how other people feel about this, and get advice on my situation.

Thanks all.

I'm 26 years of age, with my partner for 4 years and living together over 2 years. We are also financially independent of each other. I have no problem with this bill.

In my opinion, people in longterm committed relationship should be afforded these rights. I have seen people move into other people houses, pay the mortgage for years and get nothing back when they split because they weren't married and therefore have no rights. This bill changes that.

If you think the courts are going to issue you with a maintenance order because you paid your OH's rent the odd time in the past then I think you're being overly worried and need to relax.

You have stated that you are financially independent. My repeated mentioning of joint assets is because this is what this law is going to mainly be about,lets be honest. I'd imagine in most separation cases it comes down to property and children. You may disagree.

Make a conscious decision not to support your partner for a prolonged period of time if this bill worries you so much. Remain financially independent of her and you will have no issue.

RedXIV

Ran this past by dad (he's a guard) just because I was curious about it. He's of the belief that it's one of these "Special case" bills which is either rarely or never going to be used in the type of case you describe.

He also hastened to point out that these kind of laws are based on a foundation of basic principles and common sense, thats why we have a judge and don't just let written law dictate appropriate action. If you and your partner were to share significant assets, such as a house and a car, then yes, obviously this needs to be addressed, however, in HIS opinion, just because you paid rent for someone else a few times will never result in you having to pay maintenance for someone else. No judge would condone something like that.

Basically you need to understand that just because someone CAN apply for something, is no indication that they will receive it. For example, if the parents of a child are seperated and both share custody, then both can apply for child benefit. However, only one will actually get it. With me? Saying something is possible, does not make it definite

username932

Chinafoot wrote: »

I'm 26 years of age, with my partner for 4 years and living together over 2 years. We are also financially independent of each other. I have no problem with this bill.

In my opinion, people in longterm committed relationship should be afforded these rights. I have seen people move into other people houses, pay the mortgage for years and get nothing back when they split because they weren't married and therefore have no rights. This bill changes that.

If you think the courts are going to issue you with a maintenance order because you paid your OH's rent the odd time in the past then I think you're being overly worried and need to relax.

The situation is much as you describe.
Perhaps I am being overly concerned about it.

However, the fact remains that there's now a new and untested piece of legislation which means the courts *could* issue me with a maintenance order, in the circumstances you described.
It's really up to the judge how to rule on it, as it's a new law.
There's also no binding way, from what I can see, to opt out of this situation.
This substantially muddies the waters, makes things more complicated.
People I know have went through bad breakups in the past, and with this law there'll be the possibility of a legal action in such situations.
I don't think this is good. I don't think the state should blanket decide that after 3 years (not 2.5, or 3.5) you are now in a relationship with such responsibilities, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Chinafoot wrote: »

You have stated that you are financially independent. My repeated mentioning of joint assets is because this is what this law is going to mainly be about,lets be honest. I'd imagine in most separation cases it comes down to property and children. You may disagree.

If this law said it just applied to joint assets, or to the family home, I'd be right with you. What concerns me is that it's very broad, and could affect a lot of things. Also, as we don't have full and final seperation in Ireland, I'd be concerned that such an order could reach into the future, affect subsequent relationships etc.

Chinafoot wrote: »

Make a conscious decision not to support your partner for a prolonged period of time if this bill worries you so much. Remain financially independent of her and you will have no issue.

username932

RedXIV wrote: »

Ran this past by dad (he's a guard) just because I was curious about it.

I appreciate you taking the time to do that.

RedXIV wrote: »

He's of the belief that it's one of these "Special case" bills which is either rarely or never going to be used in the type of case you describe.

It'd be nice if they legislated it in the way they intend to use it, rather than much more broadly.

RedXIV wrote: »

He also hastened to point out that these kind of laws are based on a foundation of basic principles and common sense, thats why we have a judge and don't just let written law dictate appropriate action. If you and your partner were to share significant assets, such as a house and a car, then yes, obviously this needs to be addressed, however, in HIS opinion, just because you paid rent for someone else a few times will never result in you having to pay maintenance for someone else. No judge would condone something like that.

If I could be sure that that were the case, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. The thing is, I don't always trust the judges to make sensible decisions.
Either way, I'd even hate the idea that my previously simple boyfriend/girlfriend relationship could end up in court, just because we lived together for a few years.

RedXIV wrote: »

Basically you need to understand that just because someone CAN apply for something, is no indication that they will receive it. For example, if the parents of a child are seperated and both share custody, then both can apply for child benefit. However, only one will actually get it. With me? Saying something is possible, does not make it definite

Yeah, I understand that.
You might rack up a lot of court fees before coming to that point though; appeals etc.

I mean, I'd hope I'd never be in that situation, or in a relationship with someone where we let it get so out of hand.

But at the same time, I've seen perfectly reasonable couples, that end up getting divorced, and having these awful messy battles. Their bad feelings about the end of the relationship causes them to want to fight each other over assets, maintenance etc. and run up large legal bills.

It shouldn't happen, but it definitely does.

Suddenly, now, as a result of this legislation, the potential exists for what was previously a simple relationship to end up in court, and involve complex judgments and fees.
I think this is kind of awful.

Might talk this over in detail with my OH, and consider whether it'd make sense for us to live apart, or to maintain a list of separate finances, or a formalised agreement or some such.
Very annoying that the government just introduce these changes with the partnership law. Can't be the only cohabiting couple that does want these extra changes.

banquo

WeDo Marraige wrote:

WeDo Marriage® Limited, the world's first couple marriage company.

We empower couples to design and fulfil their own personalised, commitment-focused marriage contracts.

All without including the government as a third party to their relationship, and without interference from the 1970s-designed family law system.

RE the OP's situation, he may want to look into this. Seems to be the way things are heading. Personally, I regard this new approach as much better than the Govt's one.

http://www.wedomarriage.com/company/index.html

RedXIV

username932 wrote: »

Might talk this over in detail with my OH, and consider whether it'd make sense for us to live apart, or to maintain a list of separate finances, or a formalised agreement or some such.
Very annoying that the government just introduce these changes with the partnership law. Can't be the only cohabiting couple that does want these extra changes.

Please don't start getting this worked up about something that has a less than 1% chance of affecting you. There's literally hundreds of things that could affect you before this does, including living happily ever after. If you really, REALLY want to avoid any potential future trouble, ask your OH if they are willing to sign some version of contract that IF you break up, thats it. But I can't for the life of me imagine how you're going to do anything like this without offending them

Faith

Unregistered wrote: »

One of us - I don't want to say which one - has substantially more savings than the other. Just been working for longer, as opposed to doing further study.

If we broke up, the poorer person could come after the person with more savings, for money to support them. There doesn't seem to be anything we can do to avoid this! I really don't want this at all! It's not at all our I, or from what I know, my OH, thinks about this.

I'm a little bit worried about this - I don't know what to do. I definitely don't feel ready to commit, to looking after my OH financially, if they were unable to find work etc. I'd be happy to do it for a while, but I don't want to sign in to doing it forever, in case we just want to go our separate ways.

I'm worried that this is going to become law. Should we take a break or one of us move out for a while to avoid the 3 year limit? Perhaps I should move out for a bit, so we're not cohabiting for the required amount of time? I'm worried that this would negatively affect my relationship though, and cause extra stress.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're the one with the savings. If you're the poorer party, you have nothing to worry about with regards to this bill. You stated you wouldn't go after your OH for money in the event that you broke up, so you can't be worried about it for her sake. That leaves you with being afraid that, if you broke up, your OH would come after you for financial support. Your issue is thus not with the Bill, rather it's a trust issue with your girlfriend. I'd suggest you discuss your concerns with her rather than trying to blame it on this new Bill which, as RedXIV said, is very unlikely to be enforced in a situation like yours.

leeroybrown

RedXIV wrote: »

Please don't start getting this worked up about something that has a less than 1% chance of affecting you.

In fairness to the OP, given the current climate there's always a moderate chance that one partner in the relationship could be unemployed next week and find themselves dependent on the other party financially on a long term basis.

RedXIV wrote: »

If you really, REALLY want to avoid any potential future trouble, ask your OH if they are willing to sign some version of contract that IF you break up, thats it.

If that was done it could well turn out to have no basis in law.

I don't really have a personal opinion to add to this thread but I would suggest that the OP could ask a question over in the Legal Discussion forum where people with suitable qualification/experience could discuss it. Actual legal advice can't be given there but this might be fine under the charter given that it's more of a discussion item.

username932

RedXIV wrote: »

Please don't start getting this worked up about something that has a less than 1% chance of affecting you. There's literally hundreds of things that could affect you before this does, including living happily ever after.

Obviously, the chance of it affecting me is pretty hard to quantify, but I agree it's hopefully small. Hard to know until there's some test cases though.
Feel a bit better about it after seeing the replies here. If it turns out to mainly be applied to situations where there are a lot of assets involved, wouldn't be so worried.

Would be a little concerned though about what they do regarding future earning power etc. It'd be bad if having had a previous relationship could affect future ones.
Definitely think it's extremely bad that there's no way to 'opt-out'.
This law fundamentally changes the relationships of Irish people cohabiting, and effectively boils down to 'forced-marriage-lite'.

RedXIV wrote: »

If you really, REALLY want to avoid any potential future trouble, ask your OH if they are willing to sign some version of contract that IF you break up, thats it.

Might well talk to OH about preparing contract in future, as specified in the Bill. Annoying that it has to be with legal advice, seems awfully like that's put in to give people another reason to line pockets of legal professionals, but so be it.

RedXIV wrote: »

But I can't for the life of me imagine how you're going to do anything like this without offending them

My OH is very reasonable actually, this probably wouldn't be a problem.
Although annoyed with law that this is necessary, and can imagine a lot of people in less reasonable relationships where this could cause serious hassle.

Still interested to hear other responses...

RedXIV

leeroybrown wrote: »

In fairness to the OP, given the current climate there's always a moderate chance that one partner in the relationship could be unemployed next week and find themselves dependent on the other party financially on a long term basis.

True but it's hard to imagine what judge would condemn someone to support another just because they've become unemployed. For example, if the OP's partner were to become unemployed and she was supporting him, why should she have to continue if they broke up? It makes no sense

username932

Faith wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're the one with the savings.

Have never actually stated that at any point.
Nor, for that matter, have I stated whether I am a girl or guy, as people have assumed.
I have not corrected assumptions; but I'm trying to reason about what's fairest, irrespective of which role I am in, but considering the established parameters of the relationship I'm in.

Faith wrote: »

If you're the poorer party, you have nothing to worry about with regards to this bill.

Rubbish.
First of all, the balance of which is the wealthier individual may change over the course of the relationship. When you are young, you don't know which way your career is going to go, who might be more successful in future. As previously stated, I'm not planning on this relationship ending today or tomorrow - but that doesn't mean we want to commit yet. It should be our choice.

However, the time to put in place agreements, and properly define what both parties consider fair, is when the situation is symmetric and when interests are aligned.
In other words, the time to think out what you both want to do in the event of a breakup is well before a breakup is on the horizon; as you don't yet know who will be richer or poor, and as you don't know who might be the one to leave the relationship. This way, both your interests are aligned, in that you both have external motivation to make things as fair as possible. You can think of this as analogous to the 'cut and choose' protocol, due to the future uncertainly about who might wish to leave.

Faith wrote: »

You stated you wouldn't go after your OH for money in the event that you broke up, so you can't be worried about it for her sake.

I might change in future.
Maybe now I consider myself to be a reasonable person. Perhaps in future, my best efforts to the contrary, I'll be a raging alcoholic, or a drug addict, and abuse the law to come after the money my OH has fairly earned, despite the fact our current understanding is that we are financially independent.
I will do my best to avoid such a situation, but being human, the future is unpredictable. I have seen good people in the past that have went down such roads, and then had it out in court, blinded by their upset at the end of a relationship.
If you love someone, it's completely reasonable to want to protect them, even from yourself, in the event things go wrong.
If you're cynical, you'll call bull**** here; I understand that, your prerogative, and probably what I'd do in your position. Doesn't affect the truth of my statements though.

Faith wrote: »

That leaves you with being afraid that, if you broke up, your OH would come after you for financial support.

For the reasons I've just explained, what I'm afraid of is that, if we broke up, in the future, one of us might be tempted to use this legal machinery to violate the currently agreed parameters of our relationship.
People, and I include myself, can get very tempted by greed, when combined with anger.
This is why I don't like that the government is reaching into my relationship, and leaving me and my OH with no option of legally specifying "hey, we're together now, and love each other, but dont want to be bound together forever, and want our affairs to remain seperate"
We should have this option.
That this option is being taken away, retroactively, as a 'suprise' clause added to a piece of equality legislation is what I object to.

Faith wrote: »

Your issue is thus not with the Bill, rather it's a trust issue with your girlfriend. I'd suggest you discuss your concerns with her rather than trying to blame it on this new Bill which, as RedXIV said, is very unlikely to be enforced in a situation like yours.

I think I've shown where I'm coming from in such a way to somewhat debunk your argument. I've already mentioned this stuff to my OH; we'll discuss it in more detail as facts become clearer. There's no trust issue between my OH and myself.

Again, I would like to state, as this is new law, none of us really know the likelihood, and under what circumstances a conservative judge may or may not enforce it.

username932

leeroybrown wrote: »

In fairness to the OP, given the current climate there's always a moderate chance that one partner in the relationship could be unemployed next week and find themselves dependent on the other party financially on a long term basis.


If that was done it could well turn out to have no basis in law.

I don't really have a personal opinion to add to this thread but I would suggest that the OP could ask a question over in the Legal Discussion forum where people with suitable qualification/experience could discuss it. Actual legal advice can't be given there but this might be fine under the charter given that it's more of a discussion item.

Leeroybrown:
There is actually something in the bill about making agreements.
From what I can tell though, while they may be taken into consideration, there are not binding for a court. A thread in legal discussion might not be a bad idea.
In retrospect, should probably have posted there first to clarify the legal aspects, and then posted a thread here to get peoples reactions to my personal situation.
I guess I'm still interested to hear what people in similar situations to myself think though.

username932

RedXIV wrote: »

True but it's hard to imagine what judge would condemn someone to support another just because they've become unemployed. For example, if the OP's partner were to become unemployed and she was supporting him, why should she have to continue if they broke up? It makes no sense

Yeah, but that's what the Bill seems to say.
I don't think it makes sense from my perspective.

We can't be the only cohabiting couple who are happy together, but don't want to be financially committed??

Faith

username932 wrote: »

<Response to my post>

Fair enough then. But there's a huge amount of "what ifs" in your posts. You simply can't predict the future. What if you spontaneously get married in Vegas in a few months? Then this bill will no longer apply to you. What if (god forbid) one of you dies? It won't apply then any more either.

I see where you're coming from, and you make fair points. However, I really think you're worrying too much, and reading too much into this. If you want to discuss it further with those who might understand it better, I suggest you ask in the Legal Discussion forum for opinions on the bill.

username932

Faith wrote: »

Fair enough then. But there's a huge amount of "what ifs" in your posts. You simply can't predict the future. What if you spontaneously get married in Vegas in a few months? Then this bill will no longer apply to you. What if (god forbid) one of you dies? It won't apply then any more either.

I see where you're coming from, and you make fair points. However, I really think you're worrying too much, and reading too much into this. If you want to discuss it further with those who might understand it better, I suggest you ask in the Legal Discussion forum for opinions on the bill.

Thanks for responding.
My thoughts are coalescing in response to all of your posts.

I'm less worried, and more pragmatic now. Like any of these changes, it's just another thing to face, sort out etc. Annoying that it has to be dealt with, but that's life. I think it's government incompetence, and the state reaching too far into my personal life, but hey, there are worse effects of an incompetent government, that we're already dealing with.
Might write a letter to my TD saying that I don't think this sort of law is appropriate in modern Ireland, where young people don't always want to settle down so quickly; or that it should at least be possible for a couple to opt out, if they want to.


It's true we can't predict the future, and that much worse things can happen than this - I've seen a few.

Obviously, if we get married, then, yes, all this stuff is void - but the idea is that that would be a conscious decision we would make together; on our terms, and only if we felt ready, each individually and as a couple.


I'll wait a bit, and see what other people's reaction is to this. It might be smart to make an agreement, or to live apart once in a while, depending on how strongly we feel about it, and what happens. Time will tell.

I looked it up, something like 12% of 'families' are cohabiting couples in the last CSO results, and it's rising. These people have chosen not to get married, and I wonder, if, like me, they'll see this as unnecessary state interference in their private lives.
It's very close to forced marriage, with no opt-out. Just another thing which makes life a little more complicated.


Maybe if other cohabiting couples are feeling similarly annoyed, we'll see some responses here, or some media comment (nothing really on this in the news yet, from what I can see).

Thanks to everyone for responding though, understanding my own feelings on this a bit better.

Gerry81

I think its quite apparent that you're the one with the money, otherwise you wouldn't care.

Its also quite apparet that a) you have no faith in your relationship

b) you have no faith in your OH

c) you're a nut case

username932

Gerry81 wrote: »

I think its quite apparent that you're the one with the money, otherwise you wouldn't care.

Its also quite apparet that a) you have no faith in your relationship

b) you have no faith in your OH

c) you're a nut case

You don't specify whether you think I'm all three of A,B, and C - or just one of them.

In simple language:
* I want a fair relationship for it's own sake. You seem to find it inconceivable someone could be concerned about this unless they were the one that could lose out?

* I just don't want issues of money coming up if we broke up, because that makes break ups more complicated.

* We're young, and there's no advantage to us to have this sort of state defined relationship. It's not what we want.

* We just want to keep things simple, until such time as we decide to make them more complicated.

- It's simply annoying that we can no longer do that.

That's it in a nutshell really, you can ascribe to me whatever motives you like. I can't prove otherwise, you'll just have to take my word for it, or not, as you choose.


To put it another way:
Would you say that someone who thought their right to a divorce was important, therefore has no faith in their relationship, or doesn't trust their OH?

Xiney

Gerry81, please have a look at the Personal Issues forum charter and note in particular the fact that personal abuse of fellow posters is taken especially seriously here.

I have infracted you this time, if you continue to break the rules you will earn yourself a ban.

Ta.

floggg

First off, its a bill. Its not law, its a proposed law. If this provision is as draconian as you say, i imagine there will be a lot of controversy, and there might be amendments in the future.

OP, regardless of whatever is contained in the bill, you seem to have serious trust issues. You are contemplating moving out/taking a break with your OH, just so you can avoid a the possibility of one of you paying maintenance in the event that you split up?

Seriously, either you have general trust issues, or you think your OH is a gold digger! If you have been a relationship for three years, you should be committed enough to go, feck it, there's a possibility here of being stuck for maintenance, but what the hell, i love them, i trust them, and forsee myself spending the rest of my life with them, and i would rather take that chance, than risk losing them by suggesting a temporary split just to avoid some hypotethical payments down the line.

If i were you, i wouldnt be worrying about this bill, and be worrying about your relationship.

Also, if your partner agrees to the break, then neither of you are actually all that committed to each other IMO

Nevyn

As it stands the fact is as a currently cohabiting couple you are treated the same for socail welfare assements the same as a married couple but you can not claim off each other's PRSI like a married couple.

IF either of you were to need a means tested payment from the dept of socail welfare you are assessed the same as a married household and not as two single people living together as it is assume that you share assets as well as a bed.

IF you are living in a house which ones of you owns and the other does not have a tenants agreement then thier contribution to the house hold is seen as a contribution to the mortguage and if you break up they can claim that back or an intrest in the property.

This is how the law and the system is atm with out that bill ( which is imho very flawed ) if you are really that concerned re the bill then I suggest you talk to a family law solicitor to clarify.

Also hetro couples can not register thier relationship

Originally Posted by Civil Partnership Bill
3.—For the purposes of this Act a civil partner is either of two
persons of the same sex who are—
(a) parties to a civil partnership registration that has not been 5
dissolved or the subject of a decree of nullity, or
(b) parties to a legal relationship of a class that is the subject
of an order made under section 5 that has not been dissolved
or the subject of a decree of nullity.

which is discrimination.

philologos

OP: Don't worry. You don't have to register if you do not want to. You only register if you seek to have certain legal benefits that are incorporated in the bill. If you don't want to, that's fine, you don't have to. That's what I thought anyway. Good luck to you both.

Victor

OP, Look at section 199. While not absolutely binding, it does provide you with some reassurance.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Also hetro couples can not register thier relationship

Originally Posted by Civil Partnership Bill
3.—For the purposes of this Act a civil partner is either of two
persons of the same sex who are—
(a) parties to a civil partnership registration that has not been 5
dissolved or the subject of a decree of nullity, or
(b) parties to a legal relationship of a class that is the subject
of an order made under section 5 that has not been dissolved
or the subject of a decree of nullity.

which is discrimination.

"Civil Partnership" seems to be same sex marriage by another name, which a hetro couple who don't want to be married won't want. They would be capable of having a Section 199 contract.

username932

floggg wrote: »

First off, its a bill. Its not law, its a proposed law. If this provision is as draconian as you say, i imagine there will be a lot of controversy, and there might be amendments in the future.

It's a Bill, not a law.
However, it's not very far from becoming a law at this stage. It's being pushed by the government, not by the opposition. They expect it to be enacted by the end of the year, but it could be sooner.
You don't need to take my word for how 'draconian' it is; I've provided ample links to the bill itself. It's quite readable, so you can judge for yourself.
It would be great if there were amendments, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

floggg wrote: »

OP, regardless of whatever is contained in the bill, you seem to have serious trust issues. You are contemplating moving out/taking a break with your OH, just so you can avoid a the possibility of one of you paying maintenance in the event that you split up?
Seriously, either you have general trust issues, or you think your OH is a gold digger!

I have been considering what responses would be appropriate to avoid being forced into a situation by the government which neither myself nor my OH desire. What this pretty much boils down to, from my previous posts, is to see what happens, but consider making a cohabitation agreement (which the bill indicates will be non binding). I'm just annoyed that this is necessary, and that there's no easy opt-out.
Regarding 'trust issues', I deal with that quite thoroughly in my previous posts.
It's not about whether I trust my OH, it's about being forced into making a commitment before we want to and not being allowed opt-out.

Just because you trust someone doesn't mean you should be prepared to be automatically financially married to them.

floggg wrote: »

If you have been a relationship for three years, you should be committed enough to go, feck it, there's a possibility here of being stuck for maintenance, but what the hell, i love them, i trust them, and forsee myself spending the rest of my life with them, and i would rather take that chance, than risk losing them by suggesting a temporary split just to avoid some hypotethical payments down the line.

My point is, I shouldn't have to be in the position where I have to say 'what the hell' and take that chance. This is the government interfering in my relationship. It essentially is a state enforced three year commit-or-move-out deadline. So yeah, I'll definitely consider alternatives to being forced into something like that. A commitment like that should be made on our own terms, because WE want to, not because some bunch of bureaucrats decide that three years is an appropriate duration. Again - no opt-out!!

floggg wrote: »

If i were you, i wouldnt be worrying about this bill, and be worrying about your relationship.

Also, if your partner agrees to the break, then neither of you are actually all that committed to each other IMO

I'm not even sure I mentioned a break - perhaps I did as a candidate option, but really, I'd be more likely to consider renting apart or something.
As I've said in previous posts, even that's a bit extreme, would probably just end up trying to make a non binding agreement; but would still be extremely annoyed at being forced into that position.

Really, I don't think this is a trust issue in the relationship. From where I'm standing, that's ridiculous to me. It shouldn't be the case that you either shut up and accept de facto responsibility for each other, or you get classed as having 'trust issues'. This is really something couples should be allowed decide for themselves, and it should be forced onto us.
It's just not appropriate, for us, at this stage.

It's just not right that it's forced on us.

username932

Thaedydal wrote: »

As it stands the fact is as a currently cohabiting couple you are treated the same for socail welfare assements the same as a married couple but you can not claim off each other's PRSI like a married couple.

IF either of you were to need a means tested payment from the dept of socail welfare you are assessed the same as a married household and not as two single people living together as it is assume that you share assets as well as a bed.

It's actually worth noting that the requirement to show a sexual relationship seems to be dropped from the new bill. Afaik, it was an important aspect of the old one.
But yes, I hear what your saying. However, this new bill is, as you are probably aware, much more far reaching, in that it extends ideas of financial commitment and responsibility for the other person, and it's this I'm taking issue with.

Thaedydal wrote: »

IF you are living in a house which ones of you owns and the other does not have a tenants agreement then thier contribution to the house hold is seen as a contribution to the mortguage and if you break up they can claim that back or an intrest in the property.

This is how the law and the system is atm with out that bill ( which is imho very flawed ) if you are really that concerned re the bill then I suggest you talk to a family law solicitor to clarify.

Might well do something like that, if the bill becomes law in this state.
In fact, if wanted to make an agreement under the law, would be obliged to get legal advice (dont like that - should never be forced to avail of legal advice, but that's a different issue)

Thaedydal wrote: »

Also hetro couples can not register thier relationship
which is discrimination.

Yes, indeed it is, but that's getting into a whole other set of problems with this Bill.

username932

Jakkass wrote: »

OP: Don't worry. You don't have to register if you do not want to. You only register if you seek to have certain legal benefits that are incorporated in the bill. If you don't want to, that's fine, you don't have to. That's what I thought anyway. Good luck to you both.

Jakkass, as already covered in previous posts (at the start of the thread), we're talking about the co-habition clauses, which are automatic and don't require registration, unfortunately.

Victor

username932, as you are now registered should I move this thread? To Legal Discussion? LGB? Politics?

username932

Victor wrote: »

OP, Look at section 199. While not absolutely binding, it does provide you with some reassurance.

"Civil Partnership" seems to be same sex marriage by another name, which a hetro couple who don't want to be married won't want. They would be capable of having a Section 199 contract.

Victor, it's probably something like implementing a contract under section 199 that will be the upshot of this for us.

It's just a little scary that we've no indication of how binding or otherwise this will be, until there's case law.

For couples in our situation, this essentially boils down to a forced marriage, of a new sort we haven't seen before, and for which we have no case law; consequently the exact specifics of the unwanted relationship in which we find ourselves will be unclear at the start.
Just wish that wasn't the case, awful law sneaking in as an adjunct to some equality legislation...

username932

Victor wrote: »

username932, as you are now registered should I move this thread? To Legal Discussion? LGB? Politics?

Gosh, good question; it's really all of the above (except maybe LGB, which it isn't really).

What I really wanted to know is how other people in a similar situation feel, and how they think about this personally, as opposed to have a legal discussion about it. Your call, whereever you think is best for this - maybe even a general discussion forum, or general social discussion forum, I'm not sure.

Boston

Victor wrote: »

OP, Look at section 199. While not absolutely binding, it does provide you with some reassurance.

"Civil Partnership" seems to be same sex marriage by another name, which a hetro couple who don't want to be married won't want. They would be capable of having a Section 199 contract.

In other countries this is the case but not in Ireland. Additionally I foresee it being easier to get out of a civil partnership as opposed to a marriage.

anoisaris

Thaedydal wrote: »

As it stands the fact is as a currently cohabiting couple you are treated the same for socail welfare assements the same as a married couple but you can not claim off each other's PRSI like a married couple.

IF either of you were to need a means tested payment from the dept of socail welfare you are assessed the same as a married household and not as two single people living together as it is assume that you share assets as well as a bed.

IF you are living in a house which ones of you owns and the other does not have a tenants agreement then thier contribution to the house hold is seen as a contribution to the mortguage and if you break up they can claim that back or an intrest in the property.

This is how the law and the system is atm with out that bill ( which is imho very flawed ) if you are really that concerned re the bill then I suggest you talk to a family law solicitor to clarify.

Also hetro couples can not register thier relationship



which is discrimination.

Incorrect-unmarried opposite sex couples can register under the terms of the bill! So basically regarding that "discrimination" it would be opposite sex married couples and two people that were close(blood/half blood or adopted) relatives that could not register.

" legislation will allow same-sex couples to register their civil partnership for the first time and will also recognise a number of other rights and obligations previously denied to them. Unmarried opposite-sex couples will be allowed to register, as will those in non-sexual relations such as cohabiting companions" http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking34.htm

username932

anoisaris wrote: »

Incorrect-unmarried opposite sex couples can register under the terms of the bill! So basically regarding that "discrimination" it would be opposite sex married couples and two people that were close(blood/half blood or adopted) relatives that could not register.

" legislation will allow same-sex couples to register their civil partnership for the first time and will also recognise a number of other rights and obligations previously denied to them. Unmarried opposite-sex couples will be allowed to register, as will those in non-sexual relations such as cohabiting companions" http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking34.htm

Unless I'm much mistaken, you are incorrect yourself, anoisaris, from what I can read.
From the bill:
"For the purposes of this Act a civil partner is either of two persons of the same sex who are [...]"

So Thaedydal is is right about this.
This is not an issue for this thread, really, except to point out that what the newspaper probably got confused about (and the newspaper coverage so far has run the gamut from misleading to lies) is the automatic cohabitation arrangements, which are the topic of this thread.

If you want info on this, you are probably best off reading the bill yourself, rather than the news coverage.

anoisaris

username932 wrote: »

Unless I'm much mistaken, you are incorrect yourself, anoisaris, from what I can read.
From the bill:
"For the purposes of this Act a civil partner is either of two persons of the same sex who are [...]"

So Thaedydal is is right about this.
This is not an issue for this thread, really, except to point out that what the newspaper probably got confused about (and the newspaper coverage so far has run the gamut from misleading to lies) is the automatic cohabitation arrangements, which are the topic of this thread.

If you want info on this, you are probably best off reading the bill yourself, rather than the news coverage.

True I stand corrected so I'm off to read it all now

Nevyn

Not a PI, moving to humanties.

Faith

OP, I was thinking about this myself. Rather than moving out or taking a break, could you both move to a 2-bed apartment, with both of your names on the lease? This is terribly cold and cynical, but in the event of a nasty break up where one partner comes after the other for maintenance, it would be easier to claim you were not a couple if you live in a 2-bed rather than obviously share a room in a 1-bed house. Or at least claim that you'd simply been living as friends for however long, sleeping in separate beds.

I've heard this (illegally, I assume) suggested before for co-habiting couples where one of them needs to sign on to social welfare, and they want to avoid being means tested. If you had a two bedroom apartment, it's much easier to claim you're not a co-habiting couple if there's clear evidence of separate rooms.

Sinall

If the qualified cohabitant satisfies the court that he or she is
financially dependent on the other cohabitant and that the financial
dependence arises from the relationship or the ending of the
relationship, the court may, if satisfied that it is just and equitable to
do so in all the circumstances, make the order concerned.

This is the part that should put your mind at rest OP. The financial dependence has to arise from the relationship or the ending of the relationship. In other words, did one party become financially dependant on the other party due to the relationship (eg, did one person become the primary breadwinner whilst the other person became the primary carer for children and the home) or, did both parties rely on the combined/salary income for a number of years. Paying an extra share of the rent the odd time will not amount to financial independence.

When this is signed into law, I imagine it will be very careful monitored and that each case will be examined on its own merit. For example, a spurned party won't get anywhere by going into Court and stating "But honestly, I was financially independent on them your Honour!"

The Courts aren't going to make an order for financial support where people are messing around/playing games. A question you have to ask yourself is, do you really think your OH would utilise this as a way of getting money off you, despite you being financially independent? It could be that it's your OH you don't trust, not the law.

If you are really concerned about it (and at this stage of your relationship I genuinely don't think you should be) then you could talk to your OH. However, I suspect that they might be offended by it, if there are no signs that your relationship is in trouble and it might look like your suspect your OH of being a gold digger!

uberwolf

in the instance of failed marriages, where formal divorce hasn't occured, but people move on with their lives and take up cohabiting with others - does the 'marriage' prevent a claim of cohabiting or not?

Sinall

uberwolf wrote: »

in the instance of failed marriages, where formal divorce hasn't occured, but people move on with their lives and take up cohabiting with others - does the 'marriage' prevent a claim of cohabiting or not?

I don't believe so. I imagine it would be necessary to provide details of the ending of the marriage (dates etc) and any subsequent financial arrangements.