Anyone else enjoy being single?

Beta Ray Bill

jimgoose wrote: »

I understand the kid part, but do you mean to say you and this woman are some sort of joint-owners of the house?

Yep, "Joint" owners, but that's another story.
Basically I was TICK!!!, I bought a house with her in a place I didn't really want to live, and paid more than I wanted to pay.

I'd saved the deposit up over a number of years, then she jumped on board with the whole house buying thing with basically 20% of what I had saved and called all the shots (Once she seen I was serious about buying a house).

jimgoose

grahambo wrote: »

Yep, "Joint" owners, but that's another story.
Basically I was TICK!!!, I bought a house with her in a place I didn't really want to live, and paid more than I wanted to pay.

I'd saved the deposit up over a number of years, then she jumped on board with the whole house buying thing with basically 20% of what I had saved and called all the shots (Once she seen I was serious about buying a house).

So her name is on the mortgage and/or title deed, without her being married to you? Bad move, Chief.

Beta Ray Bill

jimgoose wrote: »

So her name is on the mortgage and/or title deed, without her being married to you? Bad move, Chief.

Yup! Again.....

TICK

I was in my late 20's, had a v.good job, money etc.
made a mistake, paying for it 8 years later

mariaalice

I am extremely happily married, but I know I would be happy on my own as well because I was when I was on my own, a lot of being content no matter what the situation is down to personality traits.

jimgoose

grahambo wrote: »

Yup! Again.....

TICK

I was in my late 20's, had a v.good job, money etc.
made a mistake, paying for it 8 years later

Indeed. Luckily enough, my house is mine and mine alone. New Toaster has a huge, rambling pile, 50 acres and a delightful old tractor out the country. Happy days. :cool:

TomasMacR

jimgoose wrote: »

So her name is on the mortgage and/or title deed, without her being married to you? Bad move, Chief.

what are the implications married versus a cohabiting couple owning a property?

Stacksofwacks

I have come to the conclusion that Im somewhat happier on my own. Yes there can be moments of loneliness but I found relationships overwhelming and brought out things in me I didnt like like jealousy and possessiveness. I didnt have much affection from my own folks growing up so I think that might have something to do with me being a bit of a weirdo

jimgoose

TomasMacR wrote: »

what are the implications married versus a cohabiting couple owning a property?

Not an awful lot, but at least if she wants the house or part thereof, the whole divorce bit would have to be done.

Deebles McBeebles

grahambo wrote: »

Yep, "Joint" owners, but that's another story.
Basically I was TICK!!!, I bought a house with her in a place I didn't really want to live, and paid more than I wanted to pay.

I'd saved the deposit up over a number of years, then she jumped on board with the whole house buying thing with basically 20% of what I had saved and called all the shots (Once she seen I was serious about buying a house).

I think I found the exact opposite of your ex. Split because I wanted to buy a house. I know, I don't get it either.

sbsquarepants

jimgoose wrote: »

So her name is on the mortgage and/or title deed, without her being married to you? Bad move, Chief.

That's exactly the situation I'm in, and tons of other people I know too. What's so bad about it?

I couldn't have bought the place with her anyway!

jimgoose

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's exactly the situation I'm in, and tons of other people I know too. What's so bad about it?

I couldn't have bought the place with her anyway!

There's nothing bad about it, unless the relationship goes titsup.com and one, if not both, end up looking for somewhere else to live.

TomasMacR

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's exactly the situation I'm in, and tons of other people I know too. What's so bad about it?

I couldn't have bought the place with her anyway!

That's what I thought also. I've no basis for it but I was under the impression that it was far worse if you are married if things go south and you both co-own a house names on deed etc.

Beta Ray Bill

TomasMacR wrote: »

what are the implications married versus a cohabiting couple owning a property?

When a divorce happens all the assets are split after 2 years of living apart (This is a legal thing), assets is everything (Property, vehicles, savings, pensions, etc)

When not married one needs to buy the other out or sell and agree how to split.
There is no legal provision for it, (IE Anything can happen). A judge would be hard pushed to force my Ex to leave the house as she's taken on the mortgage payments on her own and is managing cause now her new man is living there.
They can well afford it, and the Bank are also happy. It's also a "Family Home"

Only one who isn't happy is me as my name is still on the mortgage and I've now got to get my investment into that property back somehow. I cannot get a 2nd mortgage while my name is on that one.

MESS!!!!

Like jimgoose said, buy your own and then what's yours is yours unless you Marry

TomasMacR

grahambo wrote: »

When a divorce happens all the assets are split after 2 years of living apart (This is a legal thing), assets is everything (Property, vehicles, savings, pensions, etc)

When not married one needs to buy the other out or sell and agree how to split.
There is no legal provision for it, (IE Anything can happen). A judge would be hard pushed to force my Ex to leave the house as she's taken on the mortgage payments on her own and is managing cause now her new man is living there.
They can well afford it, and the Bank are also happy. It's also a "Family Home"

Only one who isn't happy is me as my name is still on the mortgage and I've now got to get my investment into that property back somehow. I cannot get a 2nd mortgage while my name is on that one.

MESS!!!!

Like jimgoose said, buy your own and then what's yours is yours unless you Marry

wow...that is messed up and very unfair.

Beta Ray Bill

TomasMacR wrote: »

wow...that is messed up and very unfair.

Lesson: Life is unfair.

A difficult lesson, but a lesson none the less.

Anteayer

Not only that but after your divorced in Irish law your ex can still in theory come back looking for assets. I know a friend of mine was saying that his solicitor advised that there's actually no way to have an entirely 'wipe the slate clean' divorce here, even when both parties are in full agreement, have drawn that up in paper and the are no kids or disputed assets, your ex can still come back to court claiming hardship etc etc

I'd be a bit of a stretch to get the judge to reopen the divorce but it's theoretically possible.

Basically Irish law doesn't currently allow clean break divorces. Something worth bearing in mind before you ever get married.

Irish divorce law is like something that was designed by a slightly open-minded Catholic nun. It's just about complying with the definition of divorce and requires a 4 of 5 years purgatory period to punish you for having a failed marriage too.

Beta Ray Bill

Anteayer wrote: »

Not only that but after your divorced in Irish law your ex can still in theory come back looking for assets. I know a friend of mine was saying that his solicitor advised that there's actually no way to have an entirely 'wipe the slate clean' divorce here, even when both parties are in full agreement, have drawn that up in paper and the are no kids or disputed assets, your ex can still come back to court claiming hardship etc etc

I'd be a bit of a stretch to get the judge to reopen the divorce but it's theoretically possible.

Basically Irish law doesn't currently allow clean break divorces. Something worth bearing in mind before you ever get married

I know someone that "came into money" early 2011, having completed the divorce process 7 years previous.

Her Ex found out and got a solicitor involved as he felt he was entitled to some of that given that she got a good bit of his pension.... And I think he got a good bit of it (Not 100% sure)

Gimme A Pound

I know it's great being in a good relationship and obviously it's natural to want to meet someone - also it's horrible for a while after a break-up. But i really don't get this "I am unhappy single" stuff. It comes across as kinda needy. It's not healthy not to be happy in yourself alone. Do you have friends? Maybe it's the folk who don't have much of a social life that are the ones who "hate"/are unhappy being single.

Also, it's crazy talk to be saying 29/30 is getting on in years. Do you think you'll just curl up for the rest of your 55 or so years, or what?!

I get that someone in that age bracket doesn't like the feeling of growing older, but it makes no sense to have yourself convinced that you may not meet anyone ever because of being single at 29/30.

Also most of my friends with children met their husbands/partners at that age or after.

Anteayer

grahambo wrote: »

I know someone that "came into money" early 2011, having completed the divorce process 7 years previous.

Her Ex found out and got a solicitor involved as he felt he was entitled to some of that given that she got a good bit of his pension.... And I think he got a good bit of it (Not 100% sure)

Basically, just don't get married. Seems to be the reasonable conclusion to any dealings with the Irish system. Mistakes aren't allowed and couples are bonded for life.

We didn't even have divorce until 1995 and then it was only barely passed by the skin of its teeth and has resulted in the most conservative divorce regime imaginable.

Even the fact that it's dealt with in the circuit court is ludicrous. Most divorces should be done by mediation, unless there are very serious disputes. It's a total waste of resources and stress bringing couples divorcing by mutual consent to court at all.

jimgoose

grahambo wrote: »

I know someone that "came into money" early 2011, having completed the divorce process 7 years previous.

Her Ex found out and got a solicitor involved as he felt he was entitled to some of that given that she got a good bit of his pension.... And I think he got a good bit of it (Not 100% sure)

I think that's quite reasonable and equitable actually, the idea that the wealth and asset redistribution of a divorce can be revisited after some time, in the event of a significant development in financial circumstances.

.......

TomasMacR wrote: »

what are the implications married versus a cohabiting couple owning a property?

Cohabitation act - can effectively try to be treated as same as married after 2 years if there is a child, 5 if there isnt.

.......

grahambo wrote: »

When a divorce happens all the assets are split after 2 years of living apart (This is a legal thing), assets is everything (Property, vehicles, savings, pensions, etc)

When not married one needs to buy the other out or sell and agree how to split.
There is no legal provision for it, (IE Anything can happen). A judge would be hard pushed to force my Ex to leave the house as she's taken on the mortgage payments on her own and is managing cause now her new man is living there.
They can well afford it, and the Bank are also happy. It's also a "Family Home"

Only one who isn't happy is me as my name is still on the mortgage and I've now got to get my investment into that property back somehow. I cannot get a 2nd mortgage while my name is on that one.

MESS!!!!

Like jimgoose said, buy your own and then what's yours is yours unless you Marry

Yeah - it was a bad move to buy a house and have a child in it with someone you werent married to (no **** sherlock says you).

As regards the house, can you not force sale?

Anteayer

jimgoose wrote: »

I think that's quite reasonable and equitable actually, the idea that the wealth and asset redistribution of a divorce can be revisited after some time, in the event of a significant development in financial circumstances.

In what way is that reasonable? Let's say you've a couple who broke up cleanly, had no mutual assets and no kids.

How is it in anyway reasonable that one of them could then go after the other after they've divorced?!

That's basically saying that there's no such thing as divorce at all and you cannot dissolve a marriage here.

It's even worse if someone has left an abusive or manipulative relationship or has an ex with a vendetta. They basically could be trapped for life or forced to emigrate.

jimgoose

Anteayer wrote: »

In what way is that reasonable? Let's say you've a couple who broke up cleanly, had no mutual assets and no kids.

How is it in anyway reasonable that one of them could then go after the other after they've divorced?!

That wouldn't necessarily be the case. In a case such as you describe, one or other of them coming into money later would probably make no odds. But consider a divorce where the judge awards significant alimony to the ex-wife. She then comes into money some time later. The material facts of the case are now significantly different, that is to say, the judge would have made quite different provisions had her financial circumstances been thus at that time.

Anteayer

Revising alimony is a different issue as that's an on going legal relationship.

The law as it stands could reopen a case that's been long closed and where the two parties are total strangers to each other without any financial connections at all.

If someone's in receipt of alimony payments it would seem reasonable that that is open to review as either party's circumstances could change.

The issue I'm seeing is where you've had a divorce were there were no alimony issues at all. That can still, in theory, be reopened.

Gimme A Pound

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I'm not single, and its way better than being single tbh.

Down to the individual really. There are arguments easily for the reverse. In my opinion a relationship is only better than being single when you're crazy about the person/they about you.

Just needing to be "part of a couple" - can't relate.

jimgoose

Anteayer wrote: »

Revising alimony is a different issue as that's an on going legal relationship.

The law as it stands could reopen a case that's been long closed and where the two parties are total strangers to each other without any financial connections at all.

That still wouldn't preclude revisiting the arrangements made at the time of the divorce - property, lump-sum payments, etc. - where financial circumstances change significantly.

Mad_maxx

....... wrote: »

You seem very uninformed and bitter about the reality of relationship break ups. Or maybe you just hate women, there used to be another poster around here with similar views and it turned out he had gotten himself involved with some woman who was denying him access to his child - but if his behaviour in real life was anything like his postings it was no surprise really.

The state doesnt side with the woman. If you are at a point that the state are making decisions then one of you has been spectacularly ignorant and unfair in your dealings with the other person when a fair deal could have been hammered out in mediation.

I know lots of divorced people and more cases where the woman has been left in a worse off situation than the other way.

Anyway, I loved it when I was single and I love being married to my husband because we are good pals and our personal freedoms have not been curtailed by being married. But I know if we broke up or he died tomorrow that once Id gotten over the sadness/loss I would be grand on my own again.

Can you confirm one line of your post

Are you saying that " the state doesn't side with women" in the event of marriage break-up?

sbsquarepants

jimgoose wrote: »

There's nothing bad about it, unless the relationship goes titsup.com and one, if not both, end up looking for somewhere else to live.

Makes little or no odds that I can see - especially if there are kids involved. The kids, their Mammy and their new uncle Sergio get the house no matter what it says on the deeds!

It's worse in fact if you're married. You are legally obliged to provide for your wife, not so for your girlfriend. If things go tits up you'll not only have to pay maintenance for the kids (which is only right) but also for your wife (cos Sergio likes nice things;))

Tell me how

North of 30's and long term single.

I enjoy many elements of my life which would likely be different if I was in a relationship but I also think life could be better and more fulfilling in a meaningful relationship. Part of me is excessively paranoid however about ending up in the the wrong relationship so I am not doing myself any favours in trying to be optimistic about finding the right one.

Most likely going to move abroad in coming months for a period and if I was in relationship I likely wouldn't be doing that but then, if I was in a relationship, maybe I wouldn't feel the need to do it.*


* There are no hard and fast rules, just because someone is in a relationship, it doesn't mean their life is on hold or they won't emigrate but they are generally less likely to do so.