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

04-12-2009 12:52PM

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 · 04-12-2009 12:58PM

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 · 04-12-2009 01:41PM

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 · 04-12-2009 03:30PM

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 · 04-12-2009 03:33PM

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 · 04-12-2009 03:34PM

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 · 04-12-2009 03:39PM

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 · 04-12-2009 03:42PM

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 · 04-12-2009 03:56PM

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.

04-12-2009 04:21PM

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 · 04-12-2009 04:55PM

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 · 04-12-2009 05:04PM

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

Rowley Birkin QC · 04-12-2009 05:27PM

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

K-9 · 04-12-2009 05:58PM

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 · 04-12-2009 06:23PM

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

fergalr · 04-12-2009 08:14PM

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 · 05-12-2009 02:50AM

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

K-9 · 05-12-2009 03:17AM

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.

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

Comments