Couples that live together for 3 years to become automatically (almost) married

fergalr

The bill currently going through the Dail also contains a clause, that will mean couples (whether heterosexual or homosexual) that have lived together for more than 3 years will be de-facto married.

If, for example, a boyfriend and girlfriend live together for over 3 years, and then break up, one partner can appeal for compensation and claims on the others assets, like in marriage.

Things like contributions to the family home, affect on earning potential, and so on all come into play, when calculating compensation, just like in marriage.

No one is really talking about this, because much of the discussion on the issue is caused by homosexual rights groups. But its worth paying attention to, especially if you are in a long term relationship. The state is deciding your relationship will now feature many of the responsibilities of a marriage, without any action on your part.

This is automatic, and can't be stopped from happening, if you live together.

The Bill also, separately, establishes a redress scheme for cohabitants, whether opposite-sex or same-sex. This is activated only on termination of the relationship whether by break-up or bereavement.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1204/1224260043897.html

Its also in the bill itself for all to read.

Thoughts on this?

Senna

Isn't this just common-law partner, which is a legal status in most other countries.
Its very different to the status of a married couple.

minidazzler

Haha, Long term couples = Pwned!!

cloneslad

been with my girlfriend for 5 years now, lived with her for most of it too. If we were to break up and it was my fault I would deserve it, if she screwed me over I would be in prison for murdering her and her new guy, o.j. simpson style too cut up and upset to care about money.

Doc

What if I live with a female flatemate for 3 years dose she get half?

fergalr

Doc wrote: »

What if I live with a female flatemate for 3 years dose she get half?

You would both have to go to court if she claimed you had been in a relationship. It says that unless you are closely related, it applies and no proof of a sexual relationship is required. So, potentially.

Imagine it would probably get sorted in court, but could be a pain. IANAL though.

Senna

Doc wrote: »

What if I live with a female flatemate for 3 years dose she get half?

No, she gets five eights.

Snowie

sounds kinda dumb

starbelgrade

Cripes - is it not bad enough having to live with them without this sh*t hanging over your head?! :eek:

sceptre

On the plus side, at least no-one will have to get themselves pregnant to get a legal status with you hot things. Let's remember there's often a silver lining - you can all continue to browse AH uninterrupted at night.

K-9

Eventually if look at a girls boobies you'll have to giver her half of everything you own.

Redtube isn't free!

AlmightyCushion

fergalr wrote: »

You would both have to go to court if she claimed you had been in a relationship. It says that unless you are closely related, it applies and no proof of a sexual relationship is required. So, potentially.

Imagine it would probably get sorted in court, but could be a pain. IANAL though.

You anal? I fail to see what this has to do with anything but I will note that for future reference.

kowloon

Given that I'm a student and own very little, this could turn out quite well for me, all I have to do is find a rich businesswoman who'll fund me for three years and lets me screw her over.

smk89

I know a few couples who have two rooms (good apperances for parents). Does this apply to them?

Bottle_of_Smoke

is this actually true?

Pdfile

was the pope a nazi ?

all the stars

Mental..

Understand if kids are involved maybe it protects them...

But sure, i am not married and im a bit insulted that someone else gets to tell me i am ( without providing me & my family a day out)
Thats kinda ****e..

So, leeson people, break up every 2.5 years and move em out.

Smyth

What a load of ****. How dare the state decide something like that. What's the likelyhood of this actually being passed?

I'd say this has something deeper to do with taxes, welfare and the like.

Kradock

I know some women that will have more marriages than liz Taylor. There are a few living in areas around me the council have installed revolving front doors.

Odats

What happens if somebody is married leaves the spouse not legally seperated/divorced and moves in with another person. Does the married spouse override the cohabiting person. Based on logic you legally cannot have two spouses. I presume it would be an interpretation for the courts.

Prof.Badass

Will men in such relationships have the same rights towards their own children as married men?

Might be some sort of silver lining to this idiotic piece of legislation.

Cuddlesworth

Smyth wrote: »

What a load of ****. How dare the state decide something like that. What's the likelyhood of this actually being passed?

I'd say this has something deeper to do with taxes, welfare and the like.

What's the likelihood of a law that outlaws blasphemy. Or a law that outlaws buying booze for use at home past 10pm or on religious days? Although I will admit one thing, they are consistent in making each one more retarded then the last.

AnonoBoy

So I live with a guy that scratches himself all the time, is mostly stoned and whose idea of dressing up is just putting on pants for once.

We've shared a house for 4 years.

Am I his wife now?

WindSock

It is good news for me and my non-EU citizen felladude

consultech

AnonoBoy wrote: »

So I live with a guy that scratches himself all the time, is mostly stoned and whose idea of dressing up is just putting on pants for once.

We've shared a house for 4 years.

Am I his wife now?

Not sure. You've just admitted who wears the pants in your relationship though (him, ever so occasionally, apparently)!

Euro_Kraut

vinylmesh wrote: »

Might be some sort of silver lining to this idiotic piece of legislation.

Did you read the legislation before deciding that?

Ponster

fergalr wrote: »

The bill currently going through the Dail also contains a clause, that will mean couples (whether heterosexual or homosexual) that have lived together for more than 3 years will be de-facto married.rights groups.

Its also in the bill itself for all to read.

I can't find it in the bill. Can you tell me what page it's on? (


http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d.pdf

The_Minister

Ponster wrote: »

I can't find it in the bill. Can you tell me what page it's on? (


http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d.pdf

It's not too hard to find, it's the third part of the part relating to co-habitants.

EDIT: Definition of co-habitents

170.—(1) 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 relationship
or married to each other or civil partners of each other.
(2) In determining whether or not 2 adults are cohabitants, the
court shall take into account all the circumstances of the relationship
and in particular shall have regard to the following: 20
(a) the duration of the relationship;
(b) the basis on which the couple live together;
(c) the degree of financial dependence of either adult on the
other and any agreements in respect of their finances;
(d) the degree and nature of any financial arrangements 25
between the adults including any joint purchase of an
estate or interest in land or joint acquisition of personal
property;
(e) whether there are one or more dependent children;
(f) whether one of the adults cares for and supports the chil- 30
dren of the other; and
(g) the degree to which the adults present themselves to
others as a couple.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt a relationship does not cease to
be an intimate relationship for the purpose of this section merely 35
because it is no longer sexual in nature.
(4) For the purposes of this section, 2 adults are within a prohibited
degree of relationship if—
(a) they would be prohibited from marrying each other in the
State, or 40
(b) they are in a relationship referred to in the Third Schedule
to the Civil Registration Act 2004 inserted by section 26
of this Act.
86
(5) 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
5 as a couple for a period—
(a) of 2 years or more, in the case where they are the parents
of one or more dependent children, and
(b) of 3 years or more, in any other case.
(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), an adult who would otherwise
10 be a qualified cohabitant is not a qualified cohabitant if—
(a) one or both of the adults is or was, at any time during
the relationship concerned, an adult who was married to
someone else, and
(b) at the time the relationship concerned ends, each adult
15 who is or was married has not lived apart from his or her
spouse for a period or periods of at least 4 years during
the previous 5 years.

AnonoBoy

consultech wrote: »

Not sure. You've just admitted who wears the pants in your relationship though (him, ever so occasionally, apparently)!

Well I'm the only one who ever cleans up so if the dress fits, eh?

Ponster

The_Minister wrote: »

It's not too hard to find, it's the third part of the part relating to co-habitants.

EDIT: Definition of co-habitents

Nothing in there says that a couple who are living together for 3 years automatically become a civil couple though ? (what am I not seeing)

Part 1 specificity refers to the fact that the couple must apply to the court to have the partnership recognised.

The_Minister

Ponster wrote: »

Nothing in there says that a couple who are living together for 3 years automatically become a civil couple though ? (what am I not seeing)

Part 1 specificity refers to the fact that the couple must apply to the court to have the partnership recognised.

I'm still wading through it, but if you read further there seems to be scope for the order to be granted regardless of that. (could be wrong, will get back on this.).

104494431

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

You anal? I fail to see what this has to do with anything but I will note that for future reference.

Oh ho ho ho, such a witty remark.

How decadent.

Biggins

I'm amazed it's as long as three years!

As a person that's been through a divorce and had to learn about some of the legal laws pertaining to the institution of marriage, there is one law that already exists in law that is used to catch some out.

If your living with a person for over a year and can show that you have been continuously been contributing to the costs of your partners/lovers/etc, food and or accommodation expenses, you could be entitled up to half of what they presently own.

That could be everything from a house to a dvd.

Retroactively, the same law can be used to divide goods from between two persons and extract state repayments if the state tax officers consider a suspect(s) of trying to "pull a fast one".

Food for thought.

drkpower

The_Minister wrote: »

I'm still wading through it, but if you read further there seems to be scope for the order to be granted regardless of that. (could be wrong, will get back on this.).

See PART 15, on cohabitees.
But the OP is engaging in a bit of hyperbole, sayinmg that this is 'automatic'; living together 3 years simply allows you to apply to the Court for an Order for maintenance (and other issues) and then the Court has to take into account a bunch of factors as to whether you deserve maintenance.

And you can enter into an agreement before the break-up if you are so fearful of such a scenario.

And this has nothing to do with the civil partnership part of the bill (which requires registration of the partnership).

fergalr

drkpower wrote: »

See PART 15, on cohabitees.
But the OP is engaging in a bit of hyperbole, sayinmg that this is 'automatic'; living together 3 years simply allows you to apply to the Court for an Order for maintenance (and other issues) and then the Court has to take into account a bunch of factors as to whether you deserve maintenance.

I think its reasonable to describe it as automatic.

My understanding of the current situation is that if you live with your (for example) girlfriend for 3 years, and then break up, that's the end of it. Its your own private business. Unless you have an agreement of some sort (eg, you decide to get married), then nothing happens, and they have no claim over any of your possessions, anything like that.

The situation will change, after this law, (which is currently in the process of going through the Dail).

After this law, you don't need to make any agreement with your girlfriend. Once you've lived together for 3 years, they can apply for maintenance (and other stuff) if you break up.

Its as automatic a right as in a marriage breakup. In both cases, a maintenance order has to be granted by the court.

The difference with this is that you might be automatically liable for such maintenance (as decided by a judge) without consciously deciding to marry or register a partnership with someone.

drkpower wrote: »

And you can enter into an agreement before the break-up if you are so fearful of such a scenario.

You can enter into an agreement before the breakup, yes.

Both parties must take independent (and probably expensive) legal advice in order to make such an agreement. (Sounds like a bit of a solicitors bonanza, right there).
However, many people won't do this, because its a big change that they aren't aware of to how we do things in this society.

Also, any such agreement is not necessarily binding (it says that in the law).
And its completely untested what judges will and will not decide is grounds for sharing stuff.
Queue the potential for expensive court battles over this, like what happens with marriage breakup.

drkpower wrote: »

And this has nothing to do with the civil partnership part of the bill (which requires registration of the partnership).

Yes, thats true.
Its a pity its in the same legislation.

This is potentially going to affect a lot more people than the other parts of the bill do, and isn't getting discussed.

It scares me that such a large socially changing clause can get through in a bill with close to zero debate or media attention, because its drowned out by the other aspects of the bill.

fergalr

Ponster wrote: »

Nothing in there says that a couple who are living together for 3 years automatically become a civil couple though ? (what am I not seeing)

Part 1 specificity refers to the fact that the couple must apply to the court to have the partnership recognised.

Just read it - its clear that co-habitation rights are granted automatically, no application necessary. The fact that the partnership stuff is also mentioned in the bill might be confusing at first, but if you read the other section its quite clear that its automatic.

Its in the act in black and white. Its also in the Irish Times article I mentioned - but it is very clear in the bill.

Its hard to believe its there because its such a big change and no one is talking about it, but its very definitely there.

fergalr

vinylmesh wrote: »

Will men in such relationships have the same rights towards their own children as married men?

Might be some sort of silver lining to this idiotic piece of legislation.

No, nothing as sensible as that.

No one is touching that political issue with a barge pole, I think you'll find.

funk-you

Sarah, in case you're reading this i'm on my way to Mexico with everything I can carry. I'm just not ready to give away half my stuff. Please look after the smoothy maker.

-Funk

Boom Boom

so then if we are de facto married I can claim the married credit and transfer the balance of her cut-off point onto mine.


happy days now if only I made more money then my OH


Cant see the taxman letting this go through it would mean new loopholes for all of us to exploit

drkpower

fergalr wrote: »

I think its reasonable to describe it as automatic.

My understanding of the current situation is that if you live with your (for example) girlfriend for 3 years, and then break up, that's the end of it. Its your own private business. Unless you have an agreement of some sort (eg, you decide to get married), then nothing happens, and they have no claim over any of your possessions, anything like that.

The situation will change, after this law, (which is currently in the process of going through the Dail).

I agree to a large extent; and it should be debated because people are going to be taken by surprise on it.

But I dont think the 'automatic' assertion is correct at all; I think you should have a read of s. 170(2). It lists the criteria used to determine if people are cohabitees so the mere fact of living together in a sexual relationship doesnt necessarily make ne a cohabitee - so, again, it is not automatic.

But how those criteria will in actual fact be interpreted by the courts is not certain, at this stage. However, and I may be wrong on this, looking at those criteria, I do not think it is envisaged that your typical 20-something couple, with seperate bank accounts and jobs, shacking up together will be caught by this law. Many of the criteria are in respect of children, financial dependency, agreements re: their finances. They really do not apply to most typical cohabitees. The scheme of the relevent sections seems to envisage non-married couples who have become financially dependent, perhaps with kids (see s. and 171(2) - which makes finacial dependence a prerequisite for economic redress). Of course the courts may give it a different interpretation, but I doubt it. Still should be debated but I dont see the widespread 'automatic' application of this Act that you do.

But yes, this is a little under the radar and the potential consequences of it do warrant a little bit more public debate.

Sirsok

Taken from
"The General Scheme of the Civil Partnership Bill 2008:Brave New Dawn or Missed Opportunity?"
by Dr Fergus Ryan found on westlaw.ie


The proposed civil partnership scheme7
The Bill proposes two new models of recognition, a civil partnership registration scheme for same-sex couples and a presumptive scheme for cohabitants, both same sex and opposite sex. While the cohabitation scheme is of undoubted significance, the focus of this paper is on the civil partnership registration scheme and its implications for same-sex couples. The cohabitation measures (which largely mirror the proposals of the Law Reform Commission on this topic)8 set out a “presumptive scheme”, that is, one that is applied to all cohabitants without the need for any action on their part.9 Cohabitants (including, without distinction, both same-sex and opposite sex couples) will be recognised for a variety of purposes.10 The Bill distinguishes between “cohabitants” and “qualified cohabitants”. All cohabitants (regardless of the precise duration of cohabitation) will be recognised as entitled to relief under the Domestic Violence Acts, the Civil Liability Acts, the Power of Attorney Act 1996 and the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 . The formerly applicable distinctions made between same-sex and opposite sex couples in some of the aforesaid legislation will be removed. Cohabitation agreements (which are currently unenforceable)11 will also be recognised. These will allow cohabitants to opt out of the cohabitation measures in the Bill.
A special redress scheme will apply to “qualified cohabitants”, defined as cohabitants who have lived together for three years, two where there are children from the relationship.12 A “qualified cohabitant” may claim from the estate of a deceased partner, while economically dependent qualified cohabitants may claim maintenance, accommodation and pension rights when a relationship breaks down.

Mike 1972

Senna wrote: »

Isn't this just common-law partner, which is a legal status in most other countries.

Contrary to popular belief Common law partnership actually amounts to very little legally.

TBH I think it opens a whole can of worms. Unless there are kids involved or the partners agreed that one of them should give up work I cannot see any good reason why spending three years with someone should place one under a lifetime (and beyond) obligation to support them even to the detriment of other partners/kids.

Sounds like a lawyers charter quite frankly.

wudangclan

The ''seven year itch'' becomes a ''two years,eleven months itch''.

Rowley Birkin QC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SniOXFhwIZ8

K-9

vinylmesh wrote: »

Will men in such relationships have the same rights towards their own children as married men?

Might be some sort of silver lining to this idiotic piece of legislation.

Nope, nothing changes as regards unmarried fathers. We get screwed again. Not even automatic Guardianship. Still basically a legal stranger to your child.

Ponster wrote: »

Nothing in there says that a couple who are living together for 3 years automatically become a civil couple though ? (what am I not seeing)

Part 1 specificity refers to the fact that the couple must apply to the court to have the partnership recognised.

My understanding was they could opt out.

Boom Boom wrote: »

so then if we are de facto married I can claim the married credit and transfer the balance of her cut-off point onto mine.


happy days now if only I made more money then my OH


Cant see the taxman letting this go through it would mean new loopholes for all of us to exploit

LOL Nope, no married credits or transfer of allowances or tax bands.

Mike 1972

Beginning to sound like a conspiricy to force men to get married/leave the country/limit themselves to one night stands and prostitutes

fergalr

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Beginning to sound like a conspiricy to force men to get married/leave the country/limit themselves to one night stands and prostitutes

I don't know about conspiracy - if it was a conspiracy to do anything, it's probably to make work for solicitors...

Obviously, it doesn't just apply to men, it applies equally to women.
Although how it is applied most often in society, and enforced by the judiciary might be another story.


I understand the idea that people in long term relationships shouldn't get screwed if (for example) they look after the kids all the time to support the other persons career.

But I think that should be left up to the individuals to sort out (by getting married, or explicitly forming a partnership), and not forced upon couples by the state. Certainly, it should be possible opt out (for definite, not just to make an agreement which would be taken into consideration, as is the case with this legislation). It shouldn't be necessary to go to solicitors to get advice before opting out - in practice, that puts a monetary cost on opting out, which some people won't do.

Its a huge change in the default option - currently, you have to make a decision to get married, and be financially responsible for each other - in the near future this will happen if you don't take action.

Even the idea that what's perceived as a reasonably easy-going relationship, could end in court after a breakup (say, if one person felt hard done by) isn't a pleasant one.
There's an element of forcing people to conform to your idea of what the governments idea of a relationship should be, to this legislation.

And, as posters have pointed out, it seems to introduce a lot of the responsibilities of marriage, without a lot of the rights (tax treatment, etc).

Again, what's mad about it is that its getting very little coverage.
Surely this affects a lot of people?

pwd

thinking it was to drum up activity in the housing market myself

K-9

pwd wrote: »

thinking it was to drum up activity in the housing market myself

LOL, maybe.

With the changed economic circumstances and men losing jobs far more than women, plenty of men could avail of this.