Legality of relationships

[Nurizeko]

In a recent ruling in Scottish courts a precedent has been set by which a cohabiting couple can seek compensation from the break down of the relationship, which has hit the news because it essentially sets a precedent for the kind of civil law post-split legal revenge we see in marriage.

An article linked for convenience.

I admit I feel quite strongly about this. As a bit of a hopeless romantic deep down I have always wanted to meet a girl that is 'just right' one day that restores my faith in the institution of marriage and get hitched and grow old together etc etc.

Sadly that is not how life works, divorce is these days a very common and even to be expected out-come of 'until death do us part' which is regrettable enough. But I also recognise another trend, a trend which I'm sure a large percentage of young men also recognise and thus lends weight to their avoidance of wedding bells aside from the cop-out excuse often bandied by some women that is 'a fear of commitment'.

Marriage is simply a raw shitty deal for men.

No two ways about it, in the western world, at least in many countries, a divorce is essentially a meal ticket for the women and in some cases an ongoing, even life long financial servitude to his ex spouse.

Considering social norms and realities of late I've always felt marriage/divorce law needs severe reform.


Regardless, this now concerns a 'moving of the goalposts'. In the article the woman sued for compensation following a split from her ex partner of 7 years she chose to move in with. The reason for the split? He refused to marry her apparently.

Not only did I find the ruling poor (it essentially opens the door for giving cohabitant/unmarried couples the same legal recourse as married, regardless of the judge's statement contrary) but it seems like needless meddling in personal affairs.

This not only moves the goalposts but is now I feel putting even more erosional pressure upon stable relationships as men will now chose to not live together with a partner (until successful compensation claims by sour ex's on the grounds of refusal to live together come along) not out of any real 'lack of commitment' but to avoid any potentially costly and damaging break-ups.



What about you Relic dolts? What's your opinions on this, good thing, bad?

I feel pretty strongly about this but it's always worth consulting you fine denizens of the warp, see what I've missed, considerations unconsidered.

[Malachi]

Whoa. Due to reasons you already mentioned, I would only marry if my potential bride agreed to signing marrage articles stating total separation of property. Now it seems I need to do that before only moving in with a girlfriend, at least in the UK? Is it even legally possible to do that without marriage?

What an idiotic ruling.

[Malachi]

[edit:] To quote the article:

The value of her flat when she moved out of Angus’s home in July 2009 was listed
as £88,000 – £38,000 more than she sold it for six years earlier.
She was awarded a payout but her ex-partner contested the judgment at the Court
of Session and the wrangle went to the UK’s highest civil court.
However, Jessamine, who is studying computer skills at college, said the cash had
been eaten up by legal fees.

So she sold the flat, spent the money on her education, and then demanded cash for it from her ex-partner because she happened to be living at his place for some time?

Hey, maybe I can demand money for a new flat from my parents, after all I used to live with them for even longer!

[edit2:] Still no post merging in mobile skin, apparently.

[Misiok]

Dude, now before your SO moves with you, or you with her, you ought to talk to your lawyer if that is a good idea, and even if, ask her to sign a paper prohibiting her from suing you fom whatever reason she might have. Darn Scotland, you just beat US in the most stupid laws passed contest.

[comradegrumpy]

I think you may want to take a step back for a second, guys. The reason property settlements occur in divorce cases (and, apparently, in this case) is that a simple split along the lines of 'my name's on this, so I'm keeping it' often simply is not equitable. Let's assume, for a second, that the Judges of the Supreme Court of Scotland aren't severely mentally impaired. What reason could they have for taking this guy's shit and giving it to some woman who just walked out on him?

Could it perhaps be this -

Jessamine, now living in sheltered housing in the capital’s Restalrig, said: “I put everything into that relationship, both emotionally and financially, and I lost it all. I went from owning my own flat, which I’d worked all my life for, and ended up homeless and penniless."

She sold her flat - where did that money go? I'm willing to bet that, at the age of 75, she didn't spend it on crack. In all likelihood the court awarded her the settlement based on her investment in the relationship, both financial and intangible. Judges of courts in the Western world, and probably the world over, are overwhelmingly male. The likelihood that they're awarding divorce/relationship split payouts based on some bizarre desire to punish men for... well, I've no idea what for, actually... is vanishingly small. Also, in the UK and Australia, at least, where punitive damages are almost never awarded in any sort of case, and definitely not in family law cases, the court will reach a financial settlement based on what it deems to be *fair* to both parties, given what they brought to the relationship. The court's aim, under the law, is for an equitable split of property, based on contribution.

[Malachi]

The critical part here seems to be - where did the money from her flat go? The quote I posted is unclear, but it seems to indicate it got eaten by "legal fees", while mentioning in the same sentence that she's studying computer skills. So she spent it on her studies, or am I reading it wrong?

At any rate, people live in non-legalized relationships like that often exactly to avoid this kind of shit. If you're in such a relationship, you ought to know what belongs to whom and not let your partner take your money. I know that if this happened in my country, forming a precedent, I would be really wary of moving in with a girl. Which is pretty fucked up.

Oh, and could we please avoid the old "if the court did this, they must have had a reason" argument? I've seen it used to justify all kinds of stupid and immoral actions by "authorities", from police brutality to genocide.

[Codex]

Considering that in the Scotland up until 2006 they had "Irregular marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute." until it got abolished,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

I wouldn't say that this is so shocking.

In my opinion, based on the information given in the article, Jessamine had every right to ask for compensation, what with her investment in the relationship and ending up losing her home. Then again, very little information is given. Sure the money got eaten up on legal fees, but before, she had a home, and now, she doesn't. Conversely, if the man and woman's position were exchanged, I would expect the woman to cough up.

Anyway, even though it is a legal precedent, it is not far to extrapolate from irregular marriage's ex-legal status to a precedent in order to protect those people who become so invested in their relationships. Previously, the law required that the couple live together in excess of 20 days. Jessamine had been seeing this guy for 6/7 years. Okay, the law got abolished, but was the idea behind it so bad?

For me, the institution of marriage is intended to secure inheritance, join families and gain a legal status. In England and Wales the status of common law marriage has never existed but if you are not concerned about the marriage as an institution, I don't see why you should have to get married to gain protection from the law.

Then again, there's the letter of the law, and then there's the spirit of the law. The letter of the law has now decreed in Scotland that cohabiting heterosexual couples now allows the courts to reallocate assets (like in divorce), but they'd be fools to apply it as is, because then every long term girlfriend would be able to rip off their boyfriend if they lived with each other long enough, in spite of unmarried status, but this is the same with almost every law that people come up with. The spirit of the law is that it's meant to protect those who are screwed over by their 'merely' cohabiting heterosexual relationships. What is exemplary about Jessamine's case is that she invested a LOT into this relationship, and that is why it's become a precedent.

[Malachi]

In my opinion , based on the information given in the article, Jessamine had every right
to ask for compensation , what with her investment in the relationship and ending up
losing her home . Then again , very little information is given. Sure the money got eaten
up on legal fees , but before, she had a home , and now , she doesn't .

Again, the critical part is what happened to the money? If she spent it on education as I thought - she doesn't have a flat, but she now has the education she wanted. Granted, that might not be that good an investment at her age, but that's a choice she made and paid for with her money. If she spent it on something else - why, she now has something else. Now, if the money somehow ended in her partner's pocket I would agree with you on moral terms (still not legal, cause I don't believe the law should protect people from naively giving their money to others). But this isn't mentioned anywhere, only that she "invested everything in the relationship" (what does that even mean, practically speaking?).

[Akranadas]

First things first.

Before you all fly off the handle and go crazy about this topic.

Have any of you actually lived with a partner? Not a room mate, but a partner you are in a relationship with?

Going through a break up while sharing a house is some serious stuff, there is all manner of things that need to be divided; it's basically the same as a divorce in some aspects.

[Malachi]

Well, if you must know - I've been through such stuff twice. Never got a problem dividing property since each single thing belonged to only one of us. It seems quite a logical way of keeping stuff when your not bound by some kind of property sharing deal.

[Rotlung]

I still don't get it.

They stressed the ruling does not put cohabiting couples on the same legal footing as married ones.

Insofar as division of assets is concerned, they do have the same footing according to this precedent, right?

I'm also not entirely sold on this emotional investment bit. You certainly can get into record books and analyse financial investment, but emotional investment? How on earth are you supposed to quantify that? Is the duration of the relationship the determining factor? If they can't nail this down properly but still go ahead with compensation by emotional investment, there's a lot of potential abuse we're looking at.

Edit: A lot of this discussion relates to common law, I believe there would be many arguments regarding common law in general emerging from this.

[TheWickedGerman]

I wonder why she ended up homeless, don´t she get a pension if she worked her whole life?

Also, why did she sell the flat anyway, if she wasn´t married? She moved to him after a few month and "a couple of dates", sold her flat and spend the money elsewhere, a very stupid move, I don´t think she deserves that compensation from a morally point of view.

[Nurizeko]

The reason property settlements occur in divorce cases (and, apparently, in this case) is that a simple split along the lines of 'my name's on this, so I'm keeping it' often simply is not equitable.

They're not married, she shouldn't have rights to his property regardless, no contract in which what-is-mine-is-yours was entered into.

Could it perhaps be this -

Not that it matters as again, no marriage contract was entered into and she chose to live with him of her own volition, the break up occurred because he didn't marry her. Now we can all jump around about deal-breakers and expectations, and the specifics, but essentially she deemed the current situation unsustainable which led to the split.

lets hypothetically say that I dumped my ex (and not the other way round), should I be able to make a claim because I spent over £500 in a month on her/activities together?

No its absurd, I'd get told to forget about it and move on, I chose to spend that money and thus the consequences of it being 'lost' or 'wasted' come any split.

Granted my living arrangements weren't as effected by the split as the woman in the article, but consequences of break down in personal relationships, especially ones instigated by yourself are just part of life you have to deal with and really don't concern the courts. Or the person you've fell out with.

The likelihood that they're awarding divorce/relationship split payouts based on some bizarre desire to punish men for...

Maybe not but some warped sense of equality? A holdover opinion that women are somehow incapable of looking after themselves? The exact reasons don't change the fact divorce law is skewed in the woman's favour.

Regardless the above ruling seems to now indicate that men or ex partners in general are somehow obligated to look out for the welfare of an ex partner. That is insanely bullshit and trumps even the unbalanced divorce rulings.

I'd argue that in a case of a non married couple without children, what the court deems fair for both parties doesn't concern them.

In my opinion, based on the information given in the article, Jessamine had every right to ask for compensation, what with her investment in the relationship and ending up losing her home.

I want my £500 buck and my hopes and ambitions for my last relationship back. Life isn't fair she had no right, she parted with her home of her own free will, I find the attitude that people have 'rights' to compensation over every little perceived insult and loss to be boggling.

The spirit of the law is irrelevant, most people invest a lot into their relationships only to 'lose it', that's not the point, it doesn't entitle what I perceive to be petty claims against the now estranged partner.

Going through a break up while sharing a house is some serious stuff, there is all manner of things that need to be divided; it's basically the same as a divorce in some aspects.

But it's not a divorce. Period. If she wanted legal protections to parachute her risky decisions she should have demanded marriage sooner.

Like as has been said, why is the ex partner accountable for her decisions?

It doesn't matter how hurt you feel, how much you feel you've lost, or anything. That is life and when a relationship crashes and burns you just have to deal with it.


Here's to the rise in single-person households and even more casual impermanent relationships to raise children into in Scotland.

[GeoffS]

Like as has been said, why is the ex partner accountable for her decisions?

Probably because they made them as joint decisions. Why should the ex-partner not share in the accountability for joint decisions?

[TheWickedGerman]

Geoff, as far as I understood the article, she sold her flat to spend the money for herself, the only thing her partner asked her was to move in to his house, this wouldn´t had required to sell her flat.

[GeoffS]

There is nothing in the article to say she sold her flat to spend the money on herself. That was something that Malachi assumed.

[Malachi]

There was nothing there to indicate otherwise, though. If she didn't spend it herself, I believe it would be an important enough detail to mention.

And, even if she spent it on her partner by, say, buying him presents, it was still her money - and she, and not her partner is responsible for what it was spent on.

[GeoffS]

There was nothing there to indicate otherwise, though.

There is, indirectly. All of the Courts involved ruled that she was entitled to compensation for the lost increase in potential value of the flat, so they were satisfied that the proceeds of the sale went into joint property of the couple, not to her as an individual.

[Codex]

I'm not really sure what the point is of discussing these points when we haven't even got enough information.

It could be that she sold her property in order to pay for her own studies, or legal fees to fight the case, or pay for his health care... who knows? This is why I'm talking about the letter and spirit of the law: could we ever be justified in asking for compensation when breaking up with someone? I'm claiming the answer is yes.

Maybe not but some warped sense of equality? A holdover opinion that women are somehow incapable of looking after themselves? The exact reasons don't change the fact divorce law is skewed in the woman's favour.

Could I have a source please? Wikipedia isn't too helpful on it, since it just gives the law as is. Googling "Divorce laws favours women" doesn't come up with anything useful or substantiated- just people saying marriage favours women.

Does divorce law itself favour women (i.e. the wording) or is it just a seemingly thematic and recurrent set of circumstances?

Right now I'm seeing the terms:
No-fault divorce
At-fault divorce
with issues like:

The legal process of divorce may also involve issues of alimony (spousal support), child custody, child support, distribution of property, and division of debt.

Child custody: out of most parents, the mothers tend to be the most hands on with their children. My mother was a professional, along with my father, so we had a nanny. I intend to be hands on with my children if I finally have them. That said, issues like parental maturity, children's desires (if they are old enough), how much time the parents can devote to parenting, even things like would the parent be uprooting their kids lives by moving away, are all considerations when they think about who gets child custody.
Alimony: Typically the spouse who hasn't spent the time networking and becoming a career woman is going to be the one who loses quality of life when they break up. Bear in mind when you make shared choices you affect the other person when they split up. For example, if a man decided to become a Househusband and the wife becomes a career woman, I would expect Alimony to favour the man.

Division of property and debt, and child support are based on the above considerations: if you have to support the children, it makes sense you get more of a cut, in order to support them. It (typically) increases the quality of life for the children, and it makes sense that if the mother is taking care of 3 children the father should keep coughing up or give them a healthy chunk of money for them to go on. The breadwinner (regardless of gender) is suddenly no longer supporting 2 or 3 extra mouths. My guardian is a bachelor and he has a ton of expendable income. He doesn't have to send kids to school, feed extra mouths, pay for heating when he's out, drive people anywhere and hence pay for petrol, etc, etc, etc.

So, to ask again, does the letter, or indeed the spirit of the law favour women, and hence make it a shitty deal for men, or does it just favour women because we have societal norms that just makes divorce favour the child supporting, non-career partner in the story?

No fault and at-fault divorce add extra considerations to the settlement but doesn't change the underlying considerations of who would be more suited to taking care of the children, or who stands to lose more from the breakup.

The spirit of the law is irrelevant, most people invest a lot into their relationships only to 'lose it', that's not the point, it doesn't entitle what I perceive to be petty claims against the now estranged partner.

Extrapolation: so say I don't believe in marriage, I think it's a bullshit institution. So I meet someone I love, but she's a career woman, who's lined up to become a Barrister. I give up my career to become a househusband, even though I went through University (thank God the government paid me through!). She becomes the sole breadwinner and I take care of the children.

Now, 20 years on, we break up. I get custody of the children since she's basically always at work and the kids never see her. So, is it fair for me to ask for something as compensation? If you say yes, you agree to the principle of protection of an ex-partner, regardless of gender, regardless of marriage status.

Okay, so I've brought children into it. Now let's get rid of them from the example.

I still believe that marriage is a bullshit institution. Unfortunately, I'm infertile and I can't have children. Now my investment is that I sell my flat to buy a shared house. We break up 20 years later. Who gets the house? Who gets to decide? Is there even a decision to be made?

The point is, why does there need to be the holy matrimonial God-given institution of marriage to codify when the courts get the right to judge on how we split up our assets when we break up? Is it not possible that when people are together for a long time, live under the same roof, and effectively act as a married couple, that the same considerations for divorce should apply to a non-married breakup?

Note that I don't care about the current case. It could well have been massively unfair on this guy. We simply don't have enough information.

Therefore what I am asking is, if given these cases, should we consider these different from divorce settlements? And if they are, why and how so?

P.S. if you think that it's because we haven't agreed to share our lives by the court of law, then I disagree. Courts make rulings about many aspects of our lives all the time.

[Malachi]

One thing makes me wonder... why would some of you simply accept the fact that one person owes another money when no prevous deal or arrangement has been made? See, friendship can be emotionally engaging too. If we continue to accept that courts have the right to decide if someone owes someone else money based solely on their emotional relationship, how long before one friend sues another for abandonig their frendship?

I'm 100% with Nuri on this one. The court can resolve such things when a legal contract like marriage has been struck in the past. If not - it's absolutely ridiculous.

[Codex]

Because I think that the contract of marriage is an extension of a label, an institution that really has little to no bearing on relationships, or even mutual commitment to each other. I'm not talking about every single bog standard relationship, I'm talking about exceptional cases where you literally act like married couples, share finances, share a house, maybe have kids...

Now I can't speak for anyone else...

[Starfisher]

If there's a part of divorce law that sucks, it's alimony, ie "spousal support". In New Jersey, the judge can order you to pay your ex for the rest of your life. This is intended to protect people who are taken advantage of (ie, "You take care of the kids while I work, wait actually I'm marrying the secretary, cyalaterBYE"), but like any rule it gets gamed in the other direction (ie, "You work while I get a degree, and then we'll both have a job, oh wait I don't actually like working, DIVORCE ALIMONY NAOW"). There was a feature in the local paper about a guy who's wife was a practicing psychiatrist who was still awarded alimony despite a six figure income. Hooray courts!

Here's some horribly biased anecdotes: http://njalimonyreform.org/

Of course, you can't do that to someone just for living with them, you have to "hold yourself to be a husband and wife" even if you're not married the usual way.

[Codex]

See this is where the spirit of the law ought to kick in. The court isn't meant to enable exploitation, it's meant to protect both parties. As far as I'm concerned that's not a problem with the law, it's a problem with the court. Which you clearly agree with (Hooray courts!)

[Nurizeko]

Probably because they made them as joint decisions. Why should the ex-partner not share in the accountability for joint decisions?

Choosing to sell her flat was her decision, not his.

Once a flat is sold it's sold as well so this weird calculation of lost value or whatever is a bit pointless. You can't just predict the market and thus expect more than it's worth. She sold the flat and got its perceived value at the time, the 'compensation' makes no sense. It assumes its worth based on her continued residence. Irrelevant, she sold the property of her own choice. It is especially fanciful how they concluded that somehow the ex partner is responsible for her own free decisions. She already got to live in his home for years, enjoying the benefits therein, but they split. Where did he agree in a legally binding fashion to continue to benefit her come any parting of ways?

Codex:The courts have no business deciding if my assets are truly mine, especially outside of a legal contract giving rights to combine some. The ex partner committed to crime, broke no contract. If you can't comprehend that then so be it. Only shared assets should be split, and in the case of the ruling in question no shared assets as far as I'm aware existed.

I've never claimed child support is bullshit so your child-raising line goes nowhere.
Though I might add it's your decision to be the house-husband (just as it's the woman's) so you can't really blame anyone for the loss of the career. It would still be lost had the marriage remained. The child-rearer/home maker was just as much capable of finding employment as they were when the marriage was maintained.

We live in a society where people regardless of gender have rights to pursue their work life, with government support for childcare arrangements. It is entirely people's own decision if they chose to give up their career/property to assume the role of full time housewife/husband.

Now, 20 years on, we break up. I get custody of the children since she's basically always at work and the kids never see her. So, is it fair for me to ask for something as compensation? If you say yes, you agree to the principle of protection of an ex-partner, regardless of gender, regardless of marriage status.

You have claims to child support to maintain the children you and your partner conceived because society expects both parents to be involved with raising that child. Agreeing to that concept in no way allows you to make the claim on my behalf that I support general sweeping principles of protecting an ex partner, so that is a dead-end I'm afraid.

Courts make rulings about many aspects of our lives all the time.

"Burglars burgle all the time."

"Murderers murder all the time."

"Fraudsters fraud all the time."

Could go on but you get the idea. Just because something is done does not weigh it justification. Nor does accepting the courts dictate over certain aspects of our lives make rulings in others acceptable. If I may borrow your (flawed) tactic, if you agree to the courts having free run you basically okay them to come do whatever they want with you and your property when they chose to do it for whatever (or even no) reason.

All very slippery slope to the kind of state conduct reminiscent of the 1940's (managed to get Godwin in there!), etc etc.

As I've already established I have no issue with rulings in regards to child support, and to shared assets, I'm even willing to accept that entering marriage contracts opens the possibility for your assets to be stripped from you in the event of a divorce (not ideal but people have the choice to enter these contracts and know the risks).

However for the last and final time, I see no reason why merely living together in one partners home or the other suddenly warrants legal protections and benefits prior reserved for the legal institution specified for it.

It amazes me that there can be so much opposition to homosexual marriage but the courts are seemingly in some kind of rush to bestow it upon those who have no ambition whatsoever to marry.


You claim exceptional circumstances, every relationship is exceptional, at least in the mind of the party that perceives themselves as aggrieved. These kind of rulings are just as damaging as the frivolous and pointless lawsuits our societies are already beset by.

I'm sorry Codex but if someone is to convince me there is basis for the ruling and the precedent it sets, you so far aren't fulfilling the role.

[Codex]

I think we just fundamentally disagree then. Nothing I can say to change your mind. All I wanted to do was show you my point of view, which you did ask for.

I had fun anyway, I learned a bit more about divorce law and cases.

That said, can you please find a source about how divorce law favours women? I really want to see the evidence so I can criticise/absorb it.

[Paladin]

Judges of courts in the Western world, and probably the world over, are overwhelmingly male. The likelihood that they're awarding divorce/relationship split payouts based on some bizarre desire to punish men for... well, I've no idea what for, actually... is vanishingly small.

While I disagree with the ranting tone of Nuri's initial post, and the hyperbole found therein, this misses a point which is valid. Judges in the Western world are indeed overwhelmingly male. They're also overwhelmingly old, and old-fashioned, clinging to the idea that the man supports the family and the woman raises the children. Alimony (In states where it hasn't been outlawed) is a reasonable concept in principle, in protecting one partner from being utterly screwed over by the other partner who decides to run off with someone new after having a few kids and having had the first partner give up career and be a homemaker. But in practice it's overwhelmingly awarded to women, regardless of career status or the relative incomes of the individuals involved.

There's also the "Children should be with their mother" bias, that means that the female partner in a mixed sex relationship will always get primary custody of the children, unless the male partner can prove that she's some sort of crack whore degenerate, and even then it's an uphill battle for the male partner. The courts look at males who want to retain custody of their children with suspicion, and look at females wanting to retain custody of their children as "just natural".

These are horribly outdated and antiquated prejudices, but again, the vast majority of judges are old. I mean, we have 70+ year olds sitting on the bench still in some places.

To some extent that's good, as a little conservatism (In the literal sense of the word, which is "resistant to change") is a good thing in a judicial system. But the current status of property distribution in divorce proceedings is not even close to equitable.

IMO, custody of children should default to equal time joint custody. This should only change if one party doesn't want custody (Or at least, doesn't want equal time), or if one party has clearly committed unethical actions, would not be capable of caring for their children properly (In a personal sense, finance shouldn't enter into this), etc. Alimony should only be awarded if one party can prove that they gave up significant career advancement in favor of the relationship/family. And it should only apply in cases where the partner who gave up said advancement makes a lesser income than the other partner, as it never makes sense to have someone who makes less sending alimony to someone who makes more.

Child support is a different and more thorny issue. On the one hand I feel that if you create a child, you are ethically responsible for the costs of raising that child regardless of any other factors, until that child is 18 at the very least. On the other hand, I also believe that if you create a child you are entitled to the joy and emotional rewards that come of personally raising that child. Which means that I feel if you are going to hold one partner to paying child support, they should also be entitled to that equal joint custody I delineated earlier. I don't, however, feel that child support awards should be dependent on the party seeking that partial custody, since that would provide a financial incentive for disinterested parents to seek custody of their children anyway, which is never going to be a good situation for the child.

This creates a significant dilemma. If we determine child support awards based solely on proportional income, then a high-income parent could find themselves paying child support to a lower-income partner who has no custody whatsoever. If we award it based on proportional custody, then, again, we have the problem of disinterested and disinclined parents seeking custody they do not want simply to avoid having to pay support, which is just a terrible outcome.

How to solve the problem? I don't know. But the current system in which the outcome of a divorce proceeding is nearly guaranteed to be the woman getting primary or full custody, the man being ordered to pay alimony and child support, and the woman having the practical freedom to deny the man even visitation rights once she has custody? That's not working.

As for the subject of unmarried couples? IMO there's an implied contract involved in cohabitation, regardless of whether they have been formally married. Often they are sharing the cost of rent and utilities, as well as other expenses. Situations in which each partner is keeping their property 100% divided from the other's are rare and, quite honestly weird and creepy. But that aside, they're the exception rather than the rule, and should be accounted for, but again, that's not what usually happens when two people move in together and live together for 7 years.

[Akranadas]

My Ex-partner left me with a 8 weeks rent, 4 different bills, the cleaning and repair of the house (to ensure the full deposit was returned) and I had to pay for them all (All of it probably totaled close to over $5000). There was no law in place to make her pay for her parts of those expenses which she was previously paying for when we lived together. Instead I had to scrape together the money to ensure all those bills and rent were paid while also trying to find a smaller place. Even though she was on the lease and apart of those bills, nothing was forcing her to help me pay those bills in the terms of laws, I almost went homeless because of the situation she left me in.

I would have loved for a law like this to have been in place to protect me from her selfishness.

[Codex]

Fuck man, sorry to hear that =/

[Akranadas]

Fuck man, sorry to hear that =/

Thanks. All done and dusted; got through it by sheer will power and a lot of overtime. But it still doesn't make what she did was right, I wish there was a law to protect me. If we were married at the time of the split, she wouldn't have gotten away with that as the contact of marriage would have protected me from being placed into that financial position. I would have had the law on my side to protect me and force her to met her previous financial obligations until I was able to find a smaller place and finish the rental contract on the house we were renting together at the time.

Stuff as in Furniture and the like; those things are simple to divide up, even if you buy things together (which in my case, was quite a lot) but its the bills, rent and other obligations that requires some form of protection for the parties involved.

[Codex]

I almost went homeless because of the situation she left me in.

This. The idea is scary, that someone could put another person through that with no concern at all. Fuck that shit man. Just glad you made it through.

Does this anecdote change any minds, that in principle the law should be able to intervene despite a lack of contract?

EDIT: P.S. Not that this was my original point. I've never been in a properly serious relationship, especially not one which involved cohabitation, so I don't actually have any personal experience to draw upon.

[GeoffS]

Choosing to sell her flat was her decision, not his.

What is your source for that? There is nothing in the original article to support that conclusion, and all of the Courts involved in the case clearly treated it as a case where he derived a benefit from the sale of the flat. That's the only way they could rule that he was liable to pay compensation for it.

Note: I'm not saying that the ruling was correct, or that I necessarily agree with it, just that there is absolutely nothing in the original article that shows the ruling to be wrong. There is not enough information to reach a conclusion either way.

As for the subject of unmarried couples? IMO there's an implied contract involved in cohabitation, regardless of whether they have been formally married. Often they are sharing the cost of rent and utilities, as well as other expenses. Situations in which each partner is keeping their property 100% divided from the other's are rare and, quite honestly weird and creepy. But that aside, they're the exception rather than the rule, and should be accounted for, but again, that's not what usually happens when two people move in together and live together for 7 years.

This.

That's what makes these cases so complicated, the Courts have to assess the extent of any implied contract and the benefits derived by each party from the joint decisions.

[Kirjava]

All I can offer is that cohabitation is scary and complicated as fuck, and the resultant problems of it breaking down are even more so. I don't particularly want to go into more details so I don't know how useful that anecdote is, but I will say Nuri that your verbiage in your opening post, to me, borders on the misogynistic. You have one article with a divisive topic to prove your thesis that women see divorce as a "meal ticket", painting them as predatory and aggressive. One suspects there is a great deal more to this than that.

[LoCo]

I refuse to entertain any other ideas in this thread until the OP clarifies and backs up what he is claiming.

Of particular note, I would like an explanation along with credible sources for this bolded statement:

Marriage is simply a raw shitty deal for men

Since so much effort went into making sure that statement stood out in the OP, I'm going to assume it takes center stage in not only the OP but in the reason for the OP.

As a married man myself, I do no think or feel that marriage has been, in any way, "simply a raw shitty deal".

[Malachi]

Situations in which each partner is keeping their property 100 % divided from the other 's are rare and, quite honestly weird and creepy.

Wow, thanks. Obviously a situation that helps avoid all the apparently vast and scary problems this thread proceeds to mention is weird and creepy as hell.

What is your source for that ? There is nothing in the original article to support that conclusion , and all of the Courts involved in the case clearly treated it as a case where he derived a benefit from the sale of the flat. That 's the only way they could rule that he was liable to pay compensation for it.

If it was her flat, it was her decision. It might have been influenced by her partner, but it was still hers - she would be the one to sign the contract. Unless she was forced to do that against her will, which then is the real legal problem.

[edit:] Also, I think we all agree our views on the matter remain unchanged redardless of the sex of both parties, so let's cut all the mysoginist labeling, or we'll just end up calling each other names all over.

[GeoffS]

If it was her flat, it was her decision.

You and Nuri keep saying this, with nothing to base it on. In doing so, you also ignore the fact that a number of different Courts ruled that her partner derived benefit from the sale. The Courts all believe that the decision was made to benefit both parties, and there is absolutely nothing in the article to refute that. You are approaching this with your judgement already made based on nothing more than your opinion, and ignoring anything that says otherwise.

[TheWickedGerman]

You and Nuri keep saying this, with nothing to base it on. In doing so, you also ignore the fact that a number of different Courts ruled that her partner derived benefit from the sale. The Courts all believe that the decision was made to benefit both parties, and there is absolutely nothing in the article to refute that. You are approaching this with your judgement already made based on nothing more than your opinion, and ignoring anything that says otherwise.

Legally spoken it was her decision. If she used the money also for her partner or not is not important, except maybe from a morale point of view. I currently can´t make a judgement due to lack of background information in the article ( I said otherwise earlier but I mixed up the facts as you showed me )

But even with the "moral" on the woman´s side, it´s a some kind of weird. You could claim compensation for all kind of think you spend from your money for the benefit of both. Gifts, money spend on all kind of activities, household costs in case of a shared flat/house and many more. Not for the money spend itself but for the interest loss due to the fact that you couldn´t invest the money somewhere.

Better keep your bookkeeping right before your next relationship, could be worth a few bucks

Still, if you invest a big amount of money in your partner, without legal safety net of a marriage, it´s still a risky and stupid move.

[GeoffS]

Legally spoken it was her decision.

No, that's not true. Or, more precisely, it's not always true in legal terms. She would have been the one to sign the transfer papers because her name was on the title documents, but it would be up to the Court to decide whether there was an implied or explicit contract between her and her partner to sell the flat to benefit both of them. Since all of the Courts that made or reviewed the decision agreed that she was entitled to receive compensation for it, they MUST have concluded that there was a legally binding agreement between them, meaning that the decision to sell was a joint decision.

[Malachi]

Legally spoken it was her decision.
No, that's not true . Or , more precisely , it 's not always true in legal terms.

Well, I'm not really educated in UK law, but that, IMO, is fucked up right there - maybe it's not like that, but it definitely should be, if she was in full consciousness and not forced to sign.

[Codex]

Scottish Law and UK Law are separate, just something to note.

[Nurizeko]

All I can offer is that cohabitation is scary and complicated as fuck, and the resultant problems of it breaking down are even more so. I don't particularly want to go into more details so I don't know how useful that anecdote is, but I will say Nuri that your verbiage in your opening post, to me, borders on the misogynistic. You have one article with a divisive topic to prove your thesis that women see divorce as a "meal ticket", painting them as predatory and aggressive. One suspects there is a great deal more to this than that.

Accusing me of misogyny, nice. You can do better Kir.

While my opening may have sounded generalizing (my bad) it does not magic away that many women (even men) see divorce proceedings as a way to punish and hurt their ex partner, and I personally find it disgusting. I'm very big on clean breaks, and I am very very big on people not being unfairly held accountable for someone else when their only crime was association and the human failing of a break-down in personal relations.

As a married man myself, I do no think or feel that marriage has been, in any way, "simply a raw shitty deal".

I'm glad you think so, I never claimed everyone thinks so though. As a married man though care to share your thoughts and feelings on the benefits of marriage? As I said, I am after all primarily here to learn what it's like on the other side of the coin.

all of the Courts involved in the case clearly treated it as a case where he derived a benefit from the sale of the flat.

Ah again the the-courts-decision-makes-right argument. The courts could decide stoning you for 'looking a bit funny' is legal, still wouldn't really fly with me or most people that it is acceptable.

What benefit? The benefit of her company? I didn't realise her company was a special commodity. How does this in any way suddenly relieve her decision of being hers? Geoff you need to do better, because whatever argument you're trying to make is just flawed.

People benefit from other people's decisions all the time, sometimes you won't even know the person who's decision it was. I benefited from the decision by people to make studying in Scottish universities essentially free, that doesn't mean I am magically liable for any retrospective guilt for their decision.

Though I could probably argue the state has more grounds to cry for renumeration of the tuition fees than this woman had for regret years after the fact of selling her property of her own free will.

Unless the guy coerced her to the point of criminality he has no obligation to pay her way regardless, especially because no legal contract making him arguably liable was entered into.

I'm a bit disturbed that enough of you guys seem perfectly fine with this ruling and its implications, either you feel (worryingly) secure in the eternal nature of your current relationship or you (even more worryingly) think it's fine to be made liable for other people on the flimsiest of basis'.

Though I'm fairly confident if an ex girlfriend of yours tried to take you to court demanding hefty financial assets and support off of you some positions/attitudes might not be so generous as they appear here.

But even with the "moral" on the woman´s side, it´s a some kind of weird. You could claim compensation for all kind of think you spend from your money for the benefit of both. Gifts, money spend on all kind of activities, household costs in case of a shared flat/house and many more. Not for the money spend itself but for the interest loss due to the fact that you couldn't invest the money somewhere.

Exactly, the ruling is simply irresponsible and wrong. I know in some countries in the west (mine, America, etc) there is a healthy and thriving litigation culture that perceives every hurt (real or imagined) as warranting financial compensation through the courts, but this intrusion into private relationships is just unacceptable.

If merely living with someone for some time is now grounds for the civil courts the resultant effects on cohabiting couples is going to be negative to say the least.

No, that's not true. Or, more precisely, it's not always true in legal terms. She would have been the one to sign the transfer papers because her name was on the title documents, but it would be up to the Court to decide whether there was an implied or explicit contract between her and her partner to sell the flat to benefit both of them. Since all of the Courts that made or reviewed the decision agreed that she was entitled to receive compensation for it, they MUST have concluded that there was a legally binding agreement between them, meaning that the decision to sell was a joint decision.

I'm sure legalese can be bent to say a lot of things but AFAIC it's an abuse of the system. It was her decision to sell the flat. Period. They did not sign an actual contract saying he was liable for any perceived loss on her part (In this case we'll use matrimonial contract), she sold her flat because she wanted to. Simple.

She then changed her mind after the fact because surprise surprise the relationship fell apart (that never happens amirite?).

Geoff I understand what you're trying to do with the 'courts decision' line of argument, laudable but not going anywhere, courts decide a lot of things, that neither makes their decision right or even within the spirit of the law (as previously brought up in the thread).

Anyhow I'm out.

[Codex]

Okay, let's take a step back.

I backed out of this discussion because I have no personal experience to draw upon, just my education and my knowledge about English law I've learned from my parents, who were both trained in England. However, I think we can benefit from a quick summary.

Effectively, we are at an impasse. There are those who do believe that on principle one party can fuck over the other enough in an unmarried relationship that compensation seems to be due.

Nuri's main concern seems to be that with this precedent, people will abuse the system, and it sets a bad precedent.

I don't think that's a good enough reason not to actually allow the courts to deal with said issues. Consider one of the personal injuries cases that my father had to deal with: she broke her toe on a construction site where she sold lunch boxes, took it to the High Court (still called Supreme Court in the UK, I believe), and tried to claim millions of HK Dollars based on personal suffering, loss of earnings, and psychological damage.

Is that blatant abuse of the system? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't allow people to claim personal injuries? No. There are countless valid claims taken to court every year.

I totally agree with Nuri that when people are in that state, they'll feel aggrieved at an ex-partner and will attempt to make all sorts of claims, which will be worse for everyone all around. But it is the responsibility of lawyers to advise their clients when they have a case and when they don't. In addition to the precedent, we ought to have clear laws dictating when people are effectively getting fucked over and when they are not.

That is why in the English system we have a concept known as "costs".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costs_%28English_law%29

The long and short of it being that if you are wasting the court's time, and your claim is smaller or not as big as the settlement offer, or the judge thinks you are just being stupid, he can make the Plaintiff pay for the costs of all the Lawyer's fees, sometimes meaning that the Plaintiff will receive little more than pennies or indeed will lose money, whereas the Defendant loses nothing. This is to discourage people wasting the court's time. However, it is still up to their Counsel to advise them properly, and I think there needs to be something to encourage lawyers to do so instead of just being money-grubbing and taking it to court unnecessarily. Note that this is a problem with all law that involves litigation as, unlike in Australia, we don't have an anti-litigation mentality. According to a friend of mine who is studying Law in Canberra the rate at which cases get taken to court is around 2%, implying an incredibly high settlement rate. Which made my jaw drop. That said, their legal system is not all too different from the English system (bar their Land law, which got reformed), so it's not about the system or even the precedents in law (which seems to have been the focus of this thread), it's a matter of culture and attitudes.

Malachi's concern is that we need a piece of paper to codify our contracts. Well, let's look at Akra's anecdote, which I'm curious as to why it hasn't been talked about more. There was her signature on the lease, yet she could just fuck off and leave him to become homeless or die for all she knew. Does he not deserve legal protection? Is it 100% his fault for signing his name on a piece of paper with that person, and thus he should just be liable for that whole tab?

P.S. Terminology:

I believe that the Scottish Legal Terminology differs from the English:
Plaintiff= Pursuer
Defendant= Defender

[GeoffS]

@Malachi, I guarantee you that it is the case in almost every legal system. People can and do make contracts, either express or implied, to make joint decisions regarding properties that are in only one of their names. Marriage is one situation where that is an implied contract, but there are others such as business partnerships and common law (or de facto) marriages which do the same thing. Clearly, that is what ALL of the Courts involved ruled happened in this case. And there is nothing in that article that anybody can use to say they were wrong. That opinion can only come from your own preconceptions.

Geoff I understand what you're trying to do with the 'courts decision' line of argument, laudable but not going anywhere, courts decide a lot of things, that neither makes their decision right or even within the spirit of the law (as previously brought up in the thread).

Ah, no, you have clearly either missed the point of (or not read) everything I have said so far. I'm not saying that I think the Court decision was right or wrong, there isn't enough information available for me to form an opinion either way. What I am saying, and continue to say, is that you and Malachi are relying on things that you have invented to support your opinions. There is absolutely nothing in the article to show that she made the decision to sell her flat independent of her relationship. There is certainly nothing in the article to even suggest that "no legal contract making him arguably liable was entered into", or that they "did not sign an actual contract saying he was liable for any perceived loss on her part", or that she "then changed her mind after the fact because surprise surprise the relationship fell apart", or that "Choosing to sell her flat was her decision, not his", or that "no contract in which what-is-mine-is-yours was entered into". Those are all preconceived notions that you brought into your reading of the article, and you applied them to your reading of the article. Try reading it again without the prejudice, and then come back and show us anything in the article that supports any of those things I quoted.

[Gorb]

Wow, thanks. Obviously a situation that helps avoid all the apparently vast and scary problems this thread proceeds to mention is weird and creepy as hell.

I just want to step in here and offer some perspective on Paladin's statement:

Keeping your stuff completely separate when living together falls down when/if you purchase things together. For example, the gf and I bought a freezer last year when we were living together (due to the place we were renting not having a freezer, derp). It is now in storage that I am paying for because my parents couldn't handle the transportation from uni lodgings as they were ill at the time.

Even despite that, keeping your stuff completely separate is still hard work. Me and mine have been going out for close to five years now and she 'owns' a couple of my jumpers and I 'own' various bits and bobs of stuff that used to be hers. Heck, she has given me this laptop (she got an upgrade) simply because I don't have one and it's useful for a CompSci major to have a laptop (especially when his computer is in storage ).

Legally, all of these belongings still belong to their rightful owner. However we don't see the need to keep things so definitely separate because, guess what? We are happy with each other. Yes, something may happen down the line which may cause a messy divorcing of relations and belongings - however, when living together, people generally don't keep their stuff apart from each other in the vague event they may break up or get divorced. People like being happy.

Ergo, it is reasonable from someone's point of view that keeping your stuff separate implies a clinical lack of closeness that doesn't mesh with what people perceive as a normal relationship. If that works for you? Great. Everybody's different. But I wouldn't say that it is the norm.

(this is my subjective experience, backed up by virtually everyone I've ever met in a long-term relationship)

[Langy]

Malachi's concern is that we need a piece of paper to codify our contracts. Well, let's look at Akra's anecdote, which I'm curious as to why it hasn't been talked about more. There was her signature on the lease, yet she could just fuck off and leave him to become homeless or die for all she knew. Does he not deserve legal protection? Is it 100% his fault for signing his name on a piece of paper with that person, and thus he should just be liable for that whole tab?

The difference between Akrandas's anecdote and this story is in Akra's anecdote, they cosigned the lease and he was the one with the financial difficulties. Since they both signed the lease, it's understandable to expect both of them to pay. In the original story, either the woman left the residence on her own or her partner unlawfully evicted her and she was the one with the financial troubles.

If she chose to leave of her own accord - too fucking bad for her. She brought that financial hardship on herself. (same if Akra's girlfriend had moved into his apartment, but they hadn't cosigned a lease or anything, and Akra began counting on her paying half of his rent and then she left later on down the line - too bad, so sad, you shouldn't have done it that way)

If he kicked her out, that's an illegal eviction; you have to give a certain amount of notice prior to evicting someone for exactly this sort of reason - to allow them to find a new place to live, etc. That's something that the court can and should compensate the woman for.

[Kirjava]

"Borders on", Nuri. There's a difference. It was a warning that the tone of your OP is... quite alarming.

[GeoffS]

In the original story, either the woman left the residence on her own or her partner unlawfully evicted her and she was the one with the financial troubles.

That may be part of the issue considered by the Court, but there is nothing in the article to either confirm or deny that. The only thing we know from the article is that a lower Court ruled that she was entitled to compensation for breach of contract, and after exhausting all of the legal appeal provisions, that decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

[Langy]

That may be part of the issue considered by the Court, but there is nothing in the article to either confirm or deny that. The only thing we know from the article is that a lower Court ruled that she was entitled to compensation for breach of contract, and after exhausting all of the legal appeal provisions, that decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

I never claimed to know what actually happened in the original story; I only said that either she left on her own, or he kicked her out (there are no other options there, except possibly that she never actually left at all, which is a little silly). Him kicking her out would be an unlawful eviction, which is something she should reasonably be compensated for. I have no idea if that's actually what happened, though, because there isn't enough detail in the story.

[comradegrumpy]

Frankly, even if we treat Jessamine's decision to sell her flat as purely her decision (and legally, I think we more-or-less must do that) that doesn't necessarily alter my opinion of this case. If (and I'm making an assumption here - I should have been more clear about my premises in my initial response) the money from the sale of her flat was invested in, for example, shared things which she lost when she left, then she deserves the compensation. Without reviewing the facts of the case, it's a little difficult to do more than conjecture, but I think it boils down to that. Anyone in the UK willing to chase down the case report?

[Akranadas]

=NuriThough I'm fairly confident if an ex girlfriend of yours tried to take you to court demanding hefty financial assets and support off of you some positions/attitudes might not be so generous as they appear here.

I'm pretty confident that if a law existed within Australia, I would have taken advantage of it and taken her to court for walking out of the relationship, resulting in me being dumped with all the financial requirements that previously required two people to moderate.

The difference between Akrandas's anecdote and this story is in Akra's anecdote, they cosigned the lease and he was the one with the financial difficulties. Since they both signed the lease, it's understandable to expect both of them to pay.

You are correct, sir. We entered the lease as a partnership, which we both agreed to pay equally down the middle from the time of signing; we also co-signed on the electricity, contents insurance and internet/phone. All of those were agreements that she decided to walk out on when she ended the relationship, and because my name was also on those; I had to pick up the slack or suffer the consequences of failing to pay for those (as I was still living at our place after the break up; have since moved). Objects are the first thing people think about after a break up, but its the unseen things that take the biggest toll.

However, the above statement applies; if the law legally saw that we were in a committed long term relationship and that she had walked out living me with financial hardship as a result and forced her to remain committed to the contracts she signed; that would have been great. I wouldn't be in debt.

If I was married to her at the time of the separation, I would have been protected and would have been able to seek financial retribution from her walking out of those contacts.

[Langy]

However, the above statement applies; if the law legally saw that we were in a committed long term relationship and that she had walked out living me with financial hardship as a result and forced her to remain committed to the contracts she signed; that would have been great. I wouldn't be in debt.

This shouldn't have anything at all to do with it. Whether you were in a relationship or not has shit-all to do with whether she should have been on the hook for her share of the rent. You had an implied, and perhaps explicit, contract whereby you would share the cost. This has nothing to do with whether you were in a relationship or not; you could enter into the same sort of contract with a complete stranger, and you'd still both be on the hook for your shares of the rent. It's the fact you agreed to share the rent that makes it potentially actionable, not that you were in a relationship.