Co-habitation and breakup

ichabod

A close relation of mine has been cohabitating with her partner for well in excess of 10 years. The partner is divorced. They have an 8 yo son. He has an adult daughter from his previous marriage. The partner provides financially for both. He also owns the house and has avoided putting her name on the title. Their relationship has deteriorated badly over the past few years due to her partner's alcoholism. At this juncture, she is considering finishing the relationship.
I can find a lot of information regarding the breakup of a marriage or a civil partnership but little of great clarity on simple cohabitating. The information she needs is what, if any, legal rights has she in regard to financial support ( apart from the obvious child support ) and property rights. Should she decide to finish the relationship, she knows that solicitors will likely be involved. But before making such a decision, she would like to have as much information as possible. Her primary concern is her son so any decision will not be taken lightly.
Perhaps someone could direct me to information more solid than what I have found to date ?

Anastasia_

Everything she needs will be in the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/24/enacted/en/html

Mr. Incognito

Tell her to go to a solicitor

C3PO

I know from personal experience that in the case of unmarried co-habitees the courts will consider each situation on it's merits. It really can go either way!
Your relation needs to go and see a solicitor who specialises in family law!

Peregrinus

The quick and dirty version:

1. In your friend's situation the courts will have the same rights on the breakdown of the relationship to award maintenance, order transfer of property or other financial measures, etc, etc as they would have if the couple were married.

2. These powers are very sweeping indeed, but the way in which they are actually exercised vary widely from case to case, because they are very dependent on the particular circumstances of each case, and circumstances vary widely.

3. The fact that your friend and her partner have never married (and therefore have never explicitly or publicly undertaken obligations to suport one another) is one of the circumstances of this case, and it may carry some weight in the deliberations. However it's only one circumstance among many, and all the circumstances will be considered including each party's means, each party's needs, the financial relationship they have had up to now, the fact they have jointly made a home for their child, etc, etc.

4. Beyond that, as others have said, she should go and see a solicitor who practices in this field. He or she can look at your friend's actual circumstances in detail, and give her a much clearer and more reliable picture on the likely range of possible outcomes in her case than she is going to get here.

Claw Hammer

She would be better off to marry him and then have a bust up.

ichabod

Anastasia_ wrote: »

Everything she needs will be in the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/24/enacted/en/html

Thanks for that.

Sassygirl1999

Claw Hammer wrote: »

She would be better off to marry him and then have a bust up.

I don't think he would marry her, he won't even put her on the deeds

splinter65

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

I don't think he would marry her, he won't even put her on the deeds

And he’s going to fight like the divil to avoid giving her anything, and even if the court awards her anything at all he will absolutely refuse to comply, and she will need a strong stomach, nerves of steel and endless patience to keep going back to court to enforce the order.
What effect this will have on their small child can only be guessed at.
In my experience of this, if she thinks the relationship is irretrievably broken she should make arrangement to find somewhere else to live for herself and her child and make enquirers about SW payments (she’s not entitled to OPFP, her child is too old) whist simultaneously appointing for legal aid.

godtabh

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

I don't think he would marry her, he won't even put her on the deeds

The bank maybe the issue and not him re the deeds

GarIT

This is why I will never let a woman live with me, it's not worth €200,000, half the value of a decent house. IMO she's not married she shouldn't get anything but that's not how it will go.

Bowlardo

I think maybe she should be able to live in the house until their kid is 18.
Then the keys should be handed back to the partner.
At no point should she have ownership to the house or entitled to half its worth. Just an opinion no legal knowledge.
They are not married. It a sad scenario all the same. Everyone is going to loose in it and it sounds like it will get dirty

Sassygirl1999

GarIT wrote: »

This is why I will never let a woman live with me, it's not worth €200,000, half the value of a decent house. IMO she's not married she shouldn't get anything but that's not how it will go.

yes your opinion is not the law, sounds like she is already a 'common law wife', she is cohabiting so is entitled to something in law

Sassygirl1999

GarIT wrote: »

This is why I will never let a woman live with me, it's not worth €200,000, half the value of a decent house. IMO she's not married she shouldn't get anything but that's not how it will go.

IMO that's a very lonely path you've chosen for monetary reasons

Uncharted

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

IMO that's a very lonely path you've chosen for monetary reasons

Lonely perhaps,
Wise certainly.

professore

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

yes your opinion is not the law, sounds like she is already a 'common law wife', she is cohabiting so is entitled to something in law

He's not saying its not the law he's saying the opposite and making his decision based on that.

erudec

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

IMO that's a very lonely path you've chosen for monetary reasons

200 grand is a really high price to pay to avoid loneliness for a short period with a person who betrays you.

It sounds like a good ad for a life where you just have sex with prostitutes instead of having girlfriends.

Assume you can hire a lovely one for a night for a grand. If you hire one a month that's 16.66 years of really high variety sex life, with no risk of feeling betrayed.

Why can't we just have a situation in law where cohabitees don't owe each other anything, unless they sign an explicit contract with legal advice on both sides?

What would be wrong with that?

Mod
Family law can be bitter, but let's keep it civil

Sassygirl1999

professore wrote: »

He's not saying its not the law he's saying the opposite and making his decision based on that.

but he could live with a woman up to 5 years I believe and not risk his house so long as there is no Children , why never, sounds desperate

Sassygirl1999

erudec wrote: »

200 grand is a really high price to pay to avoid loneliness for a short period with a person who betrays you.

Why can't we just have a situation in law where cohabitees don't owe each other anything, unless they sign an explicit contract with legal advice on both sides?

What would be wrong with that?

there is such a thing but most don't sign the contract or even know about such a facility i believe

professore

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

IMO that's a very lonely path you've chosen for monetary reasons

Ah so a man needs a woman to not be lonely. Most of the loneliest men I know are married. Most of the men with lots of friends and an active social life are either single or divorced.

If I ever got divorced I'd never remarry or live with a woman. Too restrictive and dangerous financially for very little benefit.

I enjoy women's company but you see the best of them when you don't live with them and put your financial security on the line.

Same is true for women but generally they do well financially out of a breakup so it's a better deal for them.

erudec

splinter65 wrote: »

And he’s going to fight like the divil to avoid giving her anything, and even if the court awards her anything at all he will absolutely refuse to comply, and she will need a strong stomach, nerves of steel and endless patience to keep going back to court to enforce the order.
What effect this will have on their small child can only be guessed at.
In my experience of this, if she thinks the relationship is irretrievably broken she should make arrangement to find somewhere else to live for herself and her child and make enquirers about SW payments (she’s not entitled to OPFP, her child is too old) whist simultaneously appointing for legal aid.

Why are you lobbying to help this stranger take another person's hard-earned money?

erudec

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

there is such a thing but most don't sign the contract or even know about such a facility i believe

And do the courts actually respect the contract or do they ignore them when one party has a nice sob story?

Sassygirl1999

professore wrote: »

Ah so a man needs a woman to not be lonely. Most of the loneliest men I know are married. Most of the men with lots of friends and an active social life are either single or divorced.

If I ever got divorced I'd never remarry or live with a woman. Too restrictive and dangerous financially for very little benefit.

I enjoy women's company but you see the best of them when you don't live with them and put your financial security on the line.

Same is true for women but generally they do well financially out of a breakup so it's a better deal for them.

so you are married and living with her?

Uncharted

His house. He owns it. He paid for it.

She paid nothing. She didn't contribute to it.

They had a kid. That's her cash cow it seems.

His obligation is to provide for that kid until end of education. That's proper and right.

He is not obliged to give 50% to a freeloader.

Sob stories this way please >>>>>>>>>>>

*I have no legal qualifications :pac:

listermint

Uncharted wrote: »

Lonely perhaps,
Wise certainly.

There's nothing wise about spending the short life we have solo and concerned about your worth.

Infact it's mental poverty

Mrs OBumble

So the partner's alcoholism is so bad that the relationship is ending ... but not so bad that it stops him providing financially for his kids?

Yeah.... right.

GarIT

Just a quick explanation as someone pointed out I am saying how I would act as a result of the law, not that what I said is the law.


It's not lonely, I date, they can stay over, I'd stay over with them. If I'm busy or it's a work night I can choose to not invite them over and have time to myself, if we have a fight I can have the house to myself and they can have theirs. If I want the lads over I can have the lads over, it's nobody else's business. You tend to do more activities when you have to actively meet up and they don't just exist in your space all the time. I think you tend to get along with people better when you only see them when you're in the mood to see them.



I'd happily rent with someone, there may be some legal workaround of having them rent a room in my house rather than living there for free, but they won't be living in mine long enough to be automatically gifted half of it.


I would potentially eventually marry, I'm happy splitting my income 50/50 with someone who does 38 hours a week of housework and errands to match the amount of work I'm putting in to earn the money.


The only thing I wouldn't do is let someone live in my house full time before marriage because I do not want them getting half my **** for nothing.

Sassygirl1999

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So the partner's alcoholism is so bad that the relationship is ending ... but not so bad that it stops him providing financially for his kids?

Yeah.... right.

imagine how much money he is spending in the pub

Sassygirl1999

GarIT wrote: »

Just a quick explanation as someone pointed out I am saying how I would act as a result of the law, not that what I said is the law.


It's not lonely, I date, they can stay over, I'd stay over with them. If I'm busy or it's a work night I can choose to not invite them over and have time to myself, if we have a fight I can have the house to myself and they can have theirs. You tend to do more activities when you have to actively meet up and they don't just exist in your space all the time. I think you tend to get along with people better when you only see them when you're in the mood to see them.



I'd happily rent with someone, there may be some legal workaround of having them rent a room in my house rather than living there for free, but they won't be living in mine long enough to be automatically gifted half of it.


I would potentially eventually marry, I'm happy splitting my income 50/50 with someone who does 38 hours a week of housework and errands to match the amount of work I'm putting in to earn the money.


The only thing I wouldn't do is let someone live in my house full time before marriage because I do not want them getting half my **** for nothing.

what if the other half didn't have their own nice place? Dumped?
What happens if the activities become boring or too expensive ? Dumped?
What's happens if the renter/gf lost their income? Dumped?
What if there was only 5 hours of housework and errands or if they were sick and had to stop the housework? Fired ?

Uncharted

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

what if the other half didn't have their own nice place? Dumped?
What happens if the activities become boring or too expensive ? Dumped?
What's happens if the renter/gf lost their income? Dumped?
What if there was only 5 hours of housework and errands or if they were sick and had to stop the housework? Fired ?

That's the spirit...

Sassygirl1999

Uncharted wrote: »

That's the spirit...

sad, you go your own way, no woman

GarIT

listermint wrote: »

There's nothing wise about spending the short life we have solo and concerned about your worth.

Infact it's mental poverty

I don't care about my worth, I care about my quality of life. If I work hard to earn something I don't want to lose half of it, I want to use it and enjoy it.

Uncharted

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

sad, you go your own way, no woman

Fleetwood Mac/Bob Marley remix?

For the record,I'm happily married with kids.
Wouldn't have it any other way,but my wife and I love each other,not what we own.

If things went sour,it's 50/50 split because it was 50/50 provision.....because we CHOSE that.

Not because we were made to as in OP.

Anyways,I'm dragging this off topic.
Apologies mods. I'm out.

splinter65

erudec wrote: »

Why are you lobbying to help this stranger take another person's hard-earned money?

This man is the father of the dependent child. It is his lawful responsibilty to take financial responsibility for the child.
The child has to be fed and clothed and kept warm as he’s not at 8 in a position to do it himself.
The state will take partial responsibilty but for the last number of years it is handing back the majority of the responsibility to both parents.
In my considerable experience if the absent father of the child doesn’t want to meet his responsibilty then he won’t.
That’s wrong.

splinter65

GarIT wrote: »

Just a quick explanation as someone pointed out I am saying how I would act as a result of the law, not that what I said is the law.


It's not lonely, I date, they can stay over, I'd stay over with them. If I'm busy or it's a work night I can choose to not invite them over and have time to myself, if we have a fight I can have the house to myself and they can have theirs. If I want the lads over I can have the lads over, it's nobody else's business. You tend to do more activities when you have to actively meet up and they don't just exist in your space all the time. I think you tend to get along with people better when you only see them when you're in the mood to see them.



I'd happily rent with someone, there may be some legal workaround of having them rent a room in my house rather than living there for free, but they won't be living in mine long enough to be automatically gifted half of it.


I would potentially eventually marry, I'm happy splitting my income 50/50 with someone who does 38 hours a week of housework and errands to match the amount of work I'm putting in to earn the money.


The only thing I wouldn't do is let someone live in my house full time before marriage because I do not want them getting half my **** for nothing.

But so far you haven’t met the right person. Have you ever had a relationship that lasted 3 months?

GarIT

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

what if the other half didn't have their own nice place? Dumped?
What happens if the activities become boring or too expensive ? Dumped?
What's happens if the renter/gf lost their income? Dumped?
What if there was only 5 hours of housework and errands or if they were sick and had to stop the housework? Fired ?

I'm not a soulless robot. Everything depends on circumstances.
I don't care where they live, they can live with their parents and spend 2-3 nights a week at mine or anything, it doesn't matter.
If a relationship becomes boring it's time to end it, espcially if you're young and don't have kids. If it becomes too expensive I'd help out to a point, I don't want either of us to feel like they are being paid to go on dates with me.
I wouldn't dump someone for loosing their income unless they were sacked for stealing or sexual harrassment or something, their attitude after loosing their income matters too, I wouldn't date someone who aspires to be a dole lifer.
I'm not going to time someone doing housework, I just expect an equal effort, if I was funding someone to not work and they were fully healthy I wouldn't put up with them not doing the washing or making a dinner most of the week.

Sassygirl1999

Uncharted wrote: »

Fleetwood Mac/Bob Marley remix?

For the record,I'm happily married with kids.
Wouldn't have it any other way,but my wife and I love each other,not what we own.

If things went sour,it's 50/50 split because it was 50/50 provision.....because we CHOSE that.

Not because we were made to as in OP.

Anyways,I'm dragging this off topic.
Apologies mods. I'm out.

happily married eh, I'd like to interrogate that line a bit more but I think the BS is strong in this one

Sassygirl1999

GarIT wrote: »

Yes, I have been paritally engaged after a 4 year relationship in the past. and another that was almost 3 years. Not that it's really relevant

was the split 50/50?

erudec

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

was the split 50/50?

Why wouldn't the split be 100/0? Isn't that the normal thing for two independent people who considered marriage and then thought better of it?

If you have not commingled assets, why would any splitting happen?

Sassygirl1999

GarIT wrote: »

Roughly so, we rented together, both worked but not always at the same time, I lent her €5k when she wasn't working at the end of the relationship which I've never seen a penny of that back.

I meant when the relationship broke up! U obviously feel she owes you so I'm guessing she did the dumping

erudec

GarIT wrote: »

Roughly so, we rented together, both worked but not always at the same time, I lent her €5k when she wasn't working at the end of the relationship which I've never seen a penny of that back.

Sounds like the split was at least 5 grand in her favour, then. Assuming she paid her half of rent and bills at all times you were renting.

erudec

splinter65 wrote: »

This man is the father of the dependent child. It is his lawful responsibilty to take financial responsibility for the child.
The child has to be fed and clothed and kept warm as he’s not at 8 in a position to do it himself.
The state will take partial responsibilty but for the last number of years it is handing back the majority of the responsibility to both parents.
In my considerable experience if the absent father of the child doesn’t want to meet his responsibilty then he won’t.
That’s wrong.

The dependent child should get whatever funds required directly from her father. I think a direct debit straight to a suitable intermediary would be optimal. The father should pay for whatever can be guaranteed not to go for the ex's personal use: school uniforms, school books, school trips, clothing in the child's size, and whatever counseling that the child needs.

Sassygirl1999

GarIT wrote: »

In that case no, There wasn't much to split then. I kept my savings (current account blanace) I had acumulated from having a higher income, she didn't have any savings. We weren't at the stage yet, we split spending rather than income equally, we had agreed to share our incomes equally between us when we came back from a 6 month backpacking trip where we planned to get engaged, I paid the €5k for her to go 6 months early but I never went after I found out she was riding someone she met over there.

Jesus what a filthy girl, we are not all like that

GarIT

On reflection I have removed any posts relating to my personal life, it's nobody's business. I'm not against women oe relationships in any way, I am just against putting myself in a position where someone might own half my stuff without me choosing to marry them.


I think it's completely wrong that someone can claim any sort of ownership of something where the deeds have someone elses name on them.

Glass fused light

erudec wrote: »

The dependent child should get whatever funds required directly from her father. I think a direct debit straight to a suitable intermediary would be optimal. The father should pay for whatever can be guaranteed not to go for the ex's personal use: school uniforms, school books, school trips, clothing in the child's size, and whatever counseling that the child needs.

How should the suitable intermediary be funded?
Who should pay for housing and feeding the child?
What about the cost for 50% of the childcare which the parent with the drinking problem is not able to provide?

GarIT wrote: »

, I am just against putting myself in a position where someone might own half my stuff without me choosing to marry them.

The co-habiting sections of the legistation was introduced to take account of modern relationships. It protect the interest of the weaker partner where there has been co-mingling of financial comittments. Its not romantic to head to a solicitor but in the non-marrige circumstance the court would be allowed to recognise any equitable legal ageement (a non-nuptial as it were) both parties agree to at any point in the relationship. Where as the court would be totaly disregard a pre-nup as being contrary to marraige.

GarIT wrote: »

I think it's completely wrong that someone can claim any sort of ownership of something where the deeds have someone elses name on them.

I think that the paperwork is not as important as how the ownership was gained. By your argument the bank should not be able to claim back property which has not been paid for.
Or where one party has gained from the financial input of their partner, the partner would be excluded from their investment in asset because they were too trusting due to the intimate nature of the relationship.

splinter65

erudec wrote: »

The dependent child should get whatever funds required directly from her father. I think a direct debit straight to a suitable intermediary would be optimal. The father should pay for whatever can be guaranteed not to go for the ex's personal use: school uniforms, school books, school trips, clothing in the child's size, and whatever counseling that the child needs.

Who is going to pay this full time intermediary who will obviously have to be a professional with the ability to forensically scrutinize the invoices as they are submitted on a weekly basis in order to establish that the child enjoys ongoing care attention and well being while seeing that the mother is not benefitting in any way?

erudec

splinter65 wrote: »

Who is going to pay this full time intermediary who will obviously have to be a professional with the ability to forensically scrutinize the invoices as they are submitted on a weekly basis in order to establish that the child enjoys ongoing care attention and well being while seeing that the mother is not benefitting in any way?

I think badly screwed-over fathers, and their angry children will be happy to volunteer to fulfill the role. The only payment they'll require is the satisfaction of ending the gravy train for a certain class of mother.

And women like yours truly will donate for this purpose too.

Funding will be found, don't you worry.

splinter65

erudec wrote: »

I think badly screwed-over fathers, and their angry children will be happy to volunteer to fulfill the role. The only payment they'll require is the satisfaction of ending the gravy train for a certain class of mother.

And women like yours truly will donate for this purpose too.

Funding will be found, don't you worry.

I don’t think any judge awarding maintenance to a woman which you want administered in this extraordinary fashion would be satisfied with it being managed by an unqualified “volunteer”.
Children need to be fed and clothed daily and the required appropriate amount of finance paid on a weekly basis, not in a haphazard manner by someone who you admit yourself will have an agenda

erudec

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t think any judge awarding maintenance to a woman which you want administered in this extraordinary fashion would be satisfied with it being managed by an unqualified “volunteer”.
Children need to be fed and clothed daily and the required appropriate amount of finance paid on a weekly basis, not in a haphazard manner by someone who you admit yourself will have an agenda

Yet you think that the divorced person won't have an agenda? She's totally trustworthy as being unbiased and pure of heart? If she's so perfect, what's the motivation to avoid scrutiny?

Every business has to be closely audited, so why shouldn't family finances? Why not simply require her to keep receipts and justify unexplained expenditures, like anyone else who spends other people's money.

Would you trust me to do all your shopping with your income without scrutiny for a month?

I have never divorced you, so presumably I am far less motivated to screw you over than an angry ex.

splinter65

erudec wrote: »

Yet you think that the divorced person won't have an agenda? She's totally trustworthy as being unbiased and pure of heart? If she's so perfect, what's the motivation to avoid scrutiny?

Every business has to be closely audited, so why shouldn't family finances? Why not simply require her to keep receipts and justify unexplained expenditures, like anyone else who spends other people's money.

Would you trust me to do all your shopping with your income without scrutiny for a month?

I have never divorced you, so presumably I am far less motivated to screw you over than an angry ex.

This man had sex with this woman and made a baby with her. The baby requires financial support from both parents. The judge saw an income and expenditure sheet from both the child’s parents and the judge made a desicion on how much financial contribution should be made by the absent parent.
The absent parent made his/her case in court. The judge ruled. That’s why we have a legal system. If you don’t like the legal system in relation to family law then you need to lobby your TD to have it changed.
In the meantime, as I said, the judge has ruled. So, no, I see no reason why the absent parent deserves further explanation as to how the child support is spent.
If you make a baby with someone then be an adult and meet your responsibilities. It’s not rocket science.