Common law wife

Ask for legal advice BEFORE moving in .....I think it is still currently law that a common law wife is not entitled to any share of the house if it is solely owned by your son unless he makes a Will to the contrary and leaves it to her should he die. I knew a young woman (I met her when I was staying in a hotel prior to a flight) who was lucky the hotel manager had allowed her and her little dog to move in until she found accommodation ...her partner suddenly died and although they had been together for quite a few years, HIS family turned her out as they said the house had belonged to their son and they wanted to sell it and divide the money between themselves and his sisters...........so she was then homeless. It is SO important to clear this up before she moves in !

No such thing as a common law wife / husband - maybe TOLATA law could be applied if together a long time - the onus of proof would be on the applicant

There is no such thing in English law as a common law wife ( or husband) . Someone in this situation would have limited rights . If your son owns his house and they separated his partner MAY be able to establish a beneficial interest in the property- it would help her case if she had evidence of contributing to the running costs of the house but it wouldn’t be an automatic right. when married couples separate they have a duty to maintain each other but it’s not the same for unmarried couples. If you son were to die without making a will his partner would not inherit anything whereas if they were married and he died without making a will his wife would inherit most or all of his property. As others have said it would be different if they had a civil partnership.

When will these girls(and boys) realise that there is no such thing as a common law wife under English law. They can only claim back any expenses they have incurred during their residency (duly invoiced).

This is indeed an interesting thread.
My ex (early seventies) has been living with a new partner for about the last 12 years.
Last Autumn one of my sons called to tell me that they are engaged and going to get married.
I asked my son how he felt about this and he said fine. But a few weeks after I asked my son if there had been any discussion at all regarding future finances in the event of a bereavement. He said no.
This I feel is a sad situation, clarification about such matters at the start is surely the most caring thing to do.

I was in a similar situation 20-odd years ago where I moved in with my partner.
He apparently (not that he told me, I discovered this for myself) knew all about these laws where if an unmarried couple split, if you can PROVE 'significant contribution' you have more rights over financial matters etc.
I told him right from the start that I intended to 'pay my way' and would contribute to the running of the household, food etc.
Not that this is particularly relevant but at that time I did earn more than he did plus I had child benefit for 2 children and disability benefits, so made up more than 2/3 of the household income.
We calculated all household costs (mortgage, utilities etc and food) and 'he' declared that because the children were mine (from previous relationships), I should pay 2/3 of the bills BUT I was NOT to transfer money through the bank, I was to give him my share in cash (thus eliminating any financial trail and proof that I'd contributed).
Initially I agreed and regularly gave him my share in cash until about a year down the line when someone kindly told me that in order to protect myself I should 'insist' on us having a joint account, not for both our salaries to go directly to but one where we could both deposit our share of the household bills and for them to be paid from there.
I put this to him, he wasn't keen but I said it was safer than me giving him cash each month and I told him that if he refused to do this then I'd be leaving! I didn't actually mean that I'd leave him but it scared him enough to make him agree.
We carried on like this for a year or so, then I did actually leave but didn't take anything at all from him other than a few pieces of furniture that I'd entered into the relationship with and went off and bought my own house.
When I left, I know that I could have forced him to sell the house or extend the mortgage to 'pay me off' because I could 'prove' my contribution to the household, especially that I had paid the lion's share but I just wanted rid, so I walked away and left him to it.
That isn't always possible for others in a similar situation so I would always strongly encourage people to ensure they have 'proof of contribution' if they're not going to get married or enter into a civil partnership.

Yes, there is no such thing as a common law wife or husband, it's a myth, but why are people intent on demeaning the relationship of couples who choose to live together rather than marry?
It is also a myth that couples who live together are not committed to the relationship, to one another. Similarly it is a myth that these couples are afraid of commitment. Furthermore it is a myth that these couples care about one another or love one another less than couples who do marry. In addition, it's a myth that one or other of the couple are only adverse to marriage because they view the relationship as a temporary measure until something better comes along, that they want to keep their options open, are loose with their affections and/or their sexual activities and that they take other lovers.
Yes, sometimes the relationship between couples who live together don't last. Many marriages don't last either.

I don't demean marriage. I don't demean civil partnerships. I don't demean the relationships of couples who live together and choose not to marry or have civil partnerships. Why do other people?

Well, the mates at work got your son worried enough that he told you what they said. I am assuming that there is the equivalent of a pre-nuptial agreement for couples who are not married, and will not be. However, I don't think it's anyone's business, what people who live together agree to.

CherryCezzy People sharing the joys and the problems of their lives without a "piece of paper" are no different to people sharing them after a marriage ceremony. They are just as committed to each other without the wedding as others are equally committed before it as after it - it is just a station in the railway journey of life, where some trains halt for the ceremony but others go straight past.

The point that many posters are making is that by not considering what will happen when - inevitably - one paretner dies and leaves the other widowed they are not sharing ALL of their life's problems. They have closed their eyes to what for one of them could be the biggest problem of all, having to face life not only without their partner but without their home and/or the financial support that they need.

Elegran, that's assuming that unmarried (or those not in a civil partnership) don't do what many married couples do and fail to put property etc in joint names. There have been some demeaning comments.

It is fact that unless you are married you have no automatic rights to anything unless you set up a legal agreement - so why not marry especially if you really think it is for life?

CherryCezzy

*Elegran*, that's assuming that unmarried (or those not in a civil partnership) don't do what many married couples do and fail to put property etc in joint names. There have been some demeaning comments.

But a married couples don't have to put property in both names, the fact that they are married confers those rights to both parties. It would be up to a court i.e. in divorce proceedings to decide what happened to the property. Unmarried couples who don't share ownership are not in that position.

I don't assume anything about unmarried couples, Cherrycezzie, but some of them assume that they are married under "common law" and so don't need to take any protective legal steps in case one should die before the other.

Biscuitmuncher

Why do people still believe in this nonsense? My son has a house and his girlfriend is moving in, his work friends are telling him in a few years time she will be his common law wife and can claim half of it!

Although there is no such thing as a common law wife I'm pretty sure if you both live in the same house and contribute to the bills then you do have some entitlement to a share.
Years ago, my daughter's girlfriend moved in with her, then after ten months sharing the flat she went off with somebody else. She then claimed a share if the flat and was awarded £5000. I was livid, even more so as I'd put the deposit on it in the first place.
The solicitors worked out how much the value of the property had increased during the time she lived there and said she was entitled to half. Believe it or not my daughter is still friendly with her.
I think your son should at least get advice.

Unmarried couples can still go to a court and make a claim, there are ways and means *Loislovesstewie.

It is you Elegran who has written they have closed their eyes to what for one of them could be the biggest problem of all when one partner dies having to face a life ... without their home and/or the financial support that they need. Isn't there an assumption in that? In addition, a cynic might view there's another implication in what you have written, that marriage is undertaken purely for the purpose of gain to property/financial support. Furthermore you make an accusation that unmarried couples are not sharing All of life's problems by not considering what will happen when one partner dies. Is that really a foremost thought in every couple's decision when they marry? The reason for marrying?

No such thing as common law wife, never has been. But get the legal position clear if not getting married and property or children are involved!!

Married or not, everyone needs to make a will!

I agree Witzend, everyone does, people who are single too.

The reason for marrying is, as I said, because it is a legal contract and confers rights and responsibilities on both parties which are set out plainly in law. Sorry to be pragmatic, but the truth of the matter is that it makes life easier. It exists in law and isn't a question of one person thinking the arrangement is one way and the other thinking something else. And remember that if a religious ceremony takes place then it is necessary to register the marriage in a civil ceremony in some circumstances.

You could live with a man for 20 years but if he died suddenly without a Will then his parents can plan his funeral and not invite you . They can also claim his estate and leave you without a penny . And vice versa of course

You misinterpreted, *CheryCezzy" I said "by not considering what will happen when - inevitably - one partner dies . . . . they are not sharing ALL of their life's problems. They have closed their eyes to . ." Obviously I was talking about those who haven't considered it etc. If they did consider it, then they haven't closed their eyes to it. and I wasn't talking about them.

I don't, in fact, see people demeaning those who haven't married. It isn't marriage that some have missed out, it is thinking about the future that their partner will fce without their other half. That may not come into the equation when they are young and all is wonderful and optimistic, but if you care about someone, then at some point start to care about their well-being should you die. Statistically, one half of every loving relationship will have to face life alone.

Loislovesstewie

In England there is no such thing as common law marriage, the situation in Scotland is different. I don't understand why some still think it exists. If anyone wants the benefits of marriage then get married; a quick register office ceremony does the job but if not then don't complain about not getting those benefits. Sorry to sound harsh, but it does annoy me that people sometimes want things both ways.

Quite agree. But although there is no such thing as a common law wife, I'd still be advising my son to take precautions against any claim on his property.

On a related note I can’t see the sense in children taking their father’s surname if he couldn’t be bothered to marry their mother, he doesn’t deserve the honour. After all it can be done as simply as you like, no fuss if that’s what they don’t like. Plus saves all the complications of the family members having different surnames.

They should have a tenancy in common agreement. There is no legal weight to 'common law wife'. Have a look here

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

This situation has caused problems for Muslim women who are married under Muslim law but unless the husband agrees to marry under civil law she is not considered his wife should he leave her or throw her out. This means he only has to contribute towards any children, not for his wife, who can be put into a v difficult situation especially if she had small children and its not easy for her to make enough of a wage to comfortably keep herself