The legal complications of relationships.

Eric Cartman

So I'd like some advice , more from an information perspective rather than myself actually having an issue. between Accommodation and PI on boards it comes up the whole time .

Obviously if you are married and separate, the assets are split, but with our cohabitation rules it doesn't seem to be as clear cut and children complicate that further.

So my question is , is there any avenue in Ireland that allows two people to be in a relationship , living together and even if one of them was a billionaire and the other on the dole , should a breakup or death occur, that no money or land or other property changes hands. Particularly interested in the case of the wealthier person owning the 'family home'

Really Interested

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/24/section/202/enacted/en/html#sec202

Do up a fair agreement.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Eric Cartman

Really Interested wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/24/section/202/enacted/en/html#sec202

Do up a fair agreement.

"The court may vary or set aside a cohabitants’ agreement in exceptional circumstances, where its enforceability would cause serious injustice" I'd imagine serious injustice = leaving them homeless or other such mild issues.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

looks like it may be the case, which is a massive legal tragedy in this country.

Really Interested

Eric Cartman wrote: »

"The court may vary or set aside a cohabitants’ agreement in exceptional circumstances, where its enforceability would cause serious injustice" I'd imagine serious injustice = leaving them homeless or other such mild issues.



looks like it may be the case, which is a massive legal tragedy in this country.

Hence why I said a fair agreement!

Dravokivich

Really Interested wrote: »

Hence why I said a fair agreement!

What do you mean? My understanding is it becomes an entitlement. One cannot sign away such a thing. So if there's a cohabiting couple, where one partner owns the property, a breakup of the relationship could leave them exposed to owing a share of that property to their ex-partner.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Dravokivich wrote: »

What do you mean? My understanding is it becomes an entitlement. One cannot sign away such a thing. So if there's a cohabiting couple, where one partner owns the property, a breakup of the relationship could leave them exposed to owing a share of that property to their ex-partner.

Have you any case law to back up that legal view?

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

looks like it may be the case, which is a massive legal tragedy in this country.

Not for her, it isn't!

Peregrinus

More seriously:

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Obviously if you are married and separate, the assets are split, but with our cohabitation rules it doesn't seem to be as clear cut and children complicate that further.

Actually, in the absence of a cohabitation agreement, in the event of relationship breakdown the rules are pretty similar regardless of whether the couple are spouses or “qualified cohabitantsâ€. In either case, the court has fairly broad powers to make property adjustment orders (directing the transfer of property from one party to the other) and maintenance orders.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So my question is , is there any avenue in Ireland that allows two people to be in a relationship , living together and even if one of them was a billionaire and the other on the dole , should a breakup or death occur, that no money or land or other property changes hands. Particularly interested in the case of the wealthier person owning the 'family home'

As a close reading of s. 202 shows, a cohabitation agreement can rule out property adjustment orders (except in “exceptional circumstancesâ€, where the inability to make a property adjustment order would “cause serious injusticeâ€) so that will help to protect the home owned by one party, which you mention in your OP. But it can’t rule out maintenance orders.

Having said that, if the couple, with the benefit of independent legal advice for both of them, have made an agreement as to what maintenance will be be payable in the event of relationship breakdown, that’s a factor the court would take into account in deciding whether to make a maintenance order and, if so, what order to make.

And, of course, whether the couple are married, and whether they have a cohabitation agreement, has no effect at all on the court’s power to make maintenance orders, etc, for the benefit of any children the couple may have.

Finally, note that under s.202(4) the question is not whether the cohabitation agreement is fair or "seriously unjust". It's whether enforcing it would cause serious injustice, which of course depends on the time at which, and the circumstances in which, it comes to be enforced. A cohabitation agreement might work perfectly justly in some circumstances, and monstrously unjustly in others.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I'd imagine serious injustice = leaving them homeless or other such mild issues.

Not necessarily. “Serious injustice†does not equal “serious hardshipâ€. SFAIK there haven’t been a lot of cases in Ireland where s. 202(4) has been considered and applied, so we don’t know exactly what set of facts might give rise to “serious injustice†that would enable a cohabitation agreement to be overridden, but there’s no reason to think it would be limited to cases of hardship.

There’s a similar “serious injustice†provision is New Zealand, and the commentary that seems to be emerging there is along the lines that enforcing a “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is yours†agreement is fair enough if the relationship breaks down within a couple of years, but if it goes on for fifteen or twenty years, and one spouse has changed their position to their own disadvantage in order to support the career/earning capacity of the other (limiting or quitting work to raise children, changing jobs or moving to a new city to facilitate partner’s career progression, etc) then you’re looking as possible “serious injusticeâ€. Cohabitation agreements which are just protect the value of assets which each party brings into the relationship but which leave open the possibility of property orders with regards to assets/value acquired or accrued during the relationship are much more likely to survive scrutiny. Where one or both parties already has family from a previous relationship, cohabitation agreements designed to protect their expectation of inheritance in their parent’s assets are likely to be upheld.

Victor

Important point to make in the case of Ireland is that assets aren't usually split 50:50. There is only the obligation that the other spouse is maintained (in line with one's ability).

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So my question is , is there any avenue in Ireland that allows two people to be in a relationship , living together and even if one of them was a billionaire and the other on the dole , should a breakup or death occur, that no money or land or other property changes hands.

In the case of a 'billionaire', what would it matter to them to give the former spouse €30,000 a year?

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not for her, it isn't!

Not always "her". Of several marriage break-ups I know, the women are in similar or better financial positions.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

One found things difficult. I'm not privy to the others, but they aren't doing too bad.

But in each case the woman kept the children.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Grolschevik

Victor wrote: »

But in each case the woman kept the children.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Personally, I'd count that as a win...

patsypantaloni

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It just goes to show that the man will always get screwed when it comes to family law.

Disagree
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/6358A4641E8CE28880257E5900527B9B

Eric Cartman

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It just goes to show that the man will always get screwed when it comes to family law.

I have spoken to a few solicitors who deal with divorce (in a casual capacity ) one of them even went so far as to say "the first thing ill tell a client (male) is the family home is gone and the kids arent living with you, accept it now and you'll get to keep a lot more of the assets"

Its really pretty sad that we dont have a legal framework to allow you to keep everything you have ever worked for unless you spend your life alone

Peregrinus

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its really pretty sad that we dont have a legal framework to allow you to keep everything you have ever worked for unless you spend your life alone

We don't have a social framework that lets you keep everything you ever worked for unless you spend your life alone, Eric.

And why would we? It's a contradiction in terms. Even if it were possible, I can't see any reason for thinking it would be desirable.

pilly

Fred Swanson wrote:

But are the men looked after in those situations?

There was a case on here a while ago where the wife earned a lot more than the husband and he ended up keeping the only property they had in exchange for not going after her future earnings or pension.

No kids involved, he simply chose not to work so yes it goes both ways.

pilly

Eric Cartman wrote:

Its really pretty sad that we dont have a legal framework to allow you to keep everything you have ever worked for unless you spend your life alone

So you think you should be allowed to walk away from your kids as if you were single?

Mrs OBumble

pilly wrote: »

So you think you should be allowed to walk away from your kids as if you were single?

Not everyone has kids.

When I entered a relationship, i owned a house and he owned a sey of power tools.

Totally unfair that if we broke up he could claim a share of the house.

Peregrinus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Not everyone has kids.

When I entered a relationship, i owned a house and he owned a sey of power tools.

Totally unfair that if we broke up he could claim a share of the house.

No. It would be totally unfair that, if we broke up, he was automatically entitled to get a share of the house.

But a right to claim is not unfair. During the relationship your financial affairs may have been been connected, and there was almost certainly a degree of mutual interdependence between you and either or both of you may have changed your situation in consequence of the relationship in ways that may continue to affect you after the relationship has ended. On the breakup of the relationship it's not "totally unfair" to examine whether any of those things happened and, if so, in what way and to what extent and, in the light of all that, how best to unwind and separate your affairs.