Cohabitation rights.

[motorbiking]

And now the government is considering harmonising the arrangements. Why not?

Two people get married. It is a legally binding contract. Two people don't get married, where is the legally binding contract?

Perhaps those that want the ease of exit from a cohabiting existence with no financial penalties

They didn't get married, they didn't agree to share their assets. A invited B to live with them rent free. When the relationship is over B leaves. They paid nothing in, they should get nothing out.

People are more annoyed that they will incur costs opting out.

 

[King Billy]

Two people get married. It is a legally binding contract. Two people don't get married, where is the legally binding contract?


They didn't get married, they didn't agree to share their assets. A invited B to live with them rent free. When the relationship is over B leaves. They paid nothing in, they should get nothing out.

People are more annoyed that they will incur costs opting out.

Normal people's relationships are not about legally binding contracts.
If yours are you're still free to draw up a Pre-Nuptual contract.

 

[motorbiking]

Normal people's relationships are not about legally binding contracts.

So no need to change the current status. Two people live together and keep their finances separate. They live happily. If the relationship ends they go their separate ways. No mini-divorce needed.

If yours are you're still free to draw up a Pre-Nuptual contract.

Good luck enforcing a pre-nup in a 10 year+ marriage with post-nuptial assets generated by one party and a lifestyle provided to the other during the marriage.

 

[King Billy]

So no need to change the current status. Two people live together and keep their finances separate. They live happily. If the relationship ends they go their separate ways. No mini-divorce needed.

Some people do not naturally share the responsibility of running the home, and manage to avoid many of the expenses.
So come any seperation, one partner may have amassed a decent savings, while the other was busy maintaining the home.
There's numerous imaginative scenarios that suggest the revision of the law is sensible.
It easily understandable why some would oppose it.

Good luck enforcing a pre-nup in a 10 year+ marriage with post-nuptial assets generated by one party and a lifestyle provided to the other during the marriage.

Who mentioned drawing up a preNup contract in a 10+ year marriage?

 

[noseall]

Two people get married. It is a legally binding contract. Two people don't get married, where is the legally binding contract?

So the new laws are protecting those from getting shafted just because they didn't have a marriage certificate. Sounds sensible to me.

 

[noseall]

I am not interested in engaging with nut jobs with a pathological narcissistic personality disorder living in a French mental institution.

Argument lost right there.

 

[King Billy]

Argument lost right there.

It's his and others normal MO.
A couple of probing questions, or eminent comments challenging their assertions and they're off.
It's the virtual equivalent of an abusive stomp off, banging the door behind them.

 

[aveatry]

Argument lost right there.

What argument --- there is no argument - there is a conversation going on. Don’t try and bring everything down to your anger level.

 

[noseall]

It's his and others normal MO.
A couple of probing questions, or eminent comments challenging their assertions and they're off.
It's the virtual equivalent of an abusive stomp off, banging the door behind them.

MBK and his RWR mates are some of the most ill informed lackwits to inhabit the forum. It's like arguing with 7 year old kids.

 

[aveatry]

It's his and others normal MO.
A couple of probing questions, or eminent comments challenging their assertions and they're off.
It's the virtual equivalent of an abusive stomp off, banging the door behind them.

Here we have a textbook narcissist. they will resort to abuse and goading to get what they crave - which is a reply from you.

 

[King Billy]

MBK and his RWR mates are some of the most ill informed lackwits to inhabit the forum. It's like arguing with 7 year old kids.

 

[aveatry]

MBK and his RWR mates are some of the most ill informed lackwits to inhabit the forum. It's like arguing with 7 year old kids.

Here we have another textbook narcissist.
They will resort to abuse and goading to get what they crave - which is a reply from you.
The pair of you are the same, nosel --the tweedle dum of billy's tweedle dee

 

[King Billy]

Here we have a textbook narcissist. they will resort to abuse and goading to get what they crave - which is a reply from you.

I asked you a couple of questions, such as "If it's secret, how come you've seen it?"
And "where in the discussion is this mentioned?"
And "why should there be a legal loophole for cohabitees?"
And you stomped off, in one of your usual abusive, door-banging strops.

 

[noseall]

This sounds like a completely logical thought process to me.

The new laws are designed to prevent those unmarried victims of a break up from losing out, simply because they don't have a marriage certificate to wave at the judge. The likes of MBK who worship money more than anything and try to hold onto every penny, and who were previously protected by the unmarried status thing, will be seething.

 

[noseall]

deflective waffle

Pitiful capitulation.