Ship of Fools: Advantage of not being married

Thread: Advantage of not being married Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028819

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

A friend told me she and her partner each qualify separately for food from the food pantry because they are considered separate households, being not married and not related by blood. She said as two households they get so much food each week they give some to their neighbors and grown children who can well afford their own groceries. (Apparently whether individual or family, each household gets the same box of food)

Another unmarried couple I know lost the house in a regional disaster. One collected for the value of house and contents from his insurance co, the other being legally regarded as a tenant since he didn't own the house he lived in and was not related to the owner by blood or marriage, collected from various charities as a separate victim of the disaster.

We use to tell people to get married because there are significant advantages - who can visit your hospital room, who inherits, survivor rights to pensions, etc.

But if all of these can be worked around with the right paperwork - are there still social/legal advantages to marriage these days or are people actually better off unmarried, as these two examples might suggest?

Are there still today practical legal reasons to marry? (as opposed to religious, sentimental, family pressure, and similar reasons.)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

YOu could search on the difficulties gay people have, when they cannot marry. Inheritance of an estate becomes dicey, for instance. Or even if you are in the hospital -- they'll let family in to visit you, but maybe not non-family.
I had a gay friend who in the 90s died of AIDS. His boyfriend (they could not marry) had lived with him for years in the same house. Not only was the family able to completely bar the boyfriend from the hospital and the deathbed, they were able to toss the guy out of his own home -- his name was not on the mortgage.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

In Australia people living together in a relationship are treated as a married/defacto couple for the purposes of social security and benefits. Any attempt to live as a couple without declaring it, claiming all the perks each of an individual, is met with severe penalties if discovered. People have been gaoled for claiming benefits to which they are not entitled.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

IN England they are treated as one for benefit purposes. However they do miss out on rights over children etc that married couples have.

There was a case on the news this week of a woman whose partner died before she had her baby and she cannot put his name on the birth certificate as he was not there to sign. If they were married he would be automatically down as the baby's father

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
In Australia people living together in a relationship are treated as a married/defacto couple for the purposes of social security and benefits. Any attempt to live as a couple without declaring it, claiming all the perks each of an individual, is met with severe penalties if discovered. People have been gaoled for claiming benefits to which they are not entitled.

Indeed.

And it was very instructive what happened when the law was opened to the possibility that it was possible for a "couple" to have 2 people of the same sex. It turned out this would actually save the government money overall. Prior to that, a same-sex couple simply couldn't be recognised as a "couple" in any circumstance even everyone knew they were a couple in reality and made no attempt to hide it. And this led to things like 2 separate sets of benefits.

It's not all one way or the other. The calculations at the time showed that some people would be better off because of the ability to claim spousal tax offsets, or combine medical expenses, but some would be worse off because for most benefits the 'couple rate' is less than twice the 'single rate'.

If Texas, which is where Belle Ringer is from, is locked in an official mindset that says a "couple" only exists when people are married, then it just hasn't kept up with reality, and the public purse may well suffer because of it.

[ 27. November 2014, 10:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by marzipan (# 9442) on :

In Ireland, couples living together are treated the same as married couples for the sake of benefits etc (I suppose you don't have to tell them you're in a relationship if you're not married, but I think they ask you basically 'are you living alone, with a partner, with family, with unrelated people?'*
Married couples here get benefits when it comes to tax, though - everyone is entitled to 'tax credits' which reduce the amount of income tax you pay, but married couples can share it so that if one half of the couple is not using all their allowances, the other one can use them. (i think it applies to civil partners too)
If both people are using all their tax credits it would make no difference, but if one is earning quite a lot more than the other you can save a fair amount in tax.
In addition, in Ireland it's only married couples who can jointly adopt children - a couple living together it would only be one parent who could officially adopt, which might cause problems later on.
Of course Ireland does have something about 'protecting marriage' in its constitution so you might expect things to be a bit favourable.

*I can't remember as it's a while since I filled in any forms

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Most of my friends declare a few friends as their siblings when they go to a hospital, so the "sisters" can visit.

Can't inheritance issues be fully dealt with by a simple will "everything to Joe"?

The kids question may be why a lot of people I know live together without marriage until pregnancy. One couple I know got married (after 20 years together) when one of them got a job with health benefits so the other could be covered too. (Alas, that job didn't last long; it was a common law unregistered marriage, so they went back to insisting they weren't married.) Another couple I know, he wanted to marry so her pension could be for two lives, she said no, he died first anyway.

A lot of kids these days live together for years and ask "why should we marry?" I know seniors who have moved into a marriage-like relationship without marrying. Why would they be better off formally marrying?

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

The best thing about not being married is being able to starfish in bed and steal all the duvet without anyone being irritated by it. This is one of the reasons I never intend to marry.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If Texas, which is where Belle Ringer is from, is locked in an official mindset that says a "couple" only exists when people are married, then it just hasn't kept up with reality, and the public purse may well suffer because of it.

To say nothing of needy people who go hungry because non-couples collect more free food than they can eat and give it away to people who don't need it.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

There are still some pretty significant tax benefits for being married here. I am not an expert, but IIRC, unmarried couples can end up paying considerably more habitation tax, in particular, depending on who owns the house. If you jointly own your home, you're probably ok, but Cohabitor A owns the house, and Cohabitor B is effectively living there for free, you can end up with a whopping bill.

Inheritance OTOH is a bit of minefield – the law tends to favour children over spouses – so the only way to be sure of what happens to your property is to get a notarised will/deed of donation. This is especially important if you’ve been married (with children) more than once.

Marriage also carries benefits over civil partnerships (pacte civil de solidarité or PACS – they are available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples). For example, if you are married and your spouse loses a close member of their family, you are entitled to a certain number of days off work. If you have a PACS, you get nothing. I know this because when I was on the works council, someone brought the question up to us. The management viewed the question fairly unsympathetically and said they weren’t going to go beyond their legal requirements. I’m pretty sure the person who asked the question thought this was unfair, but on the other hand, if you want the advantages that the State confers on marriage, there’s a fairly simple way of obtaining them – get married.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

As far as I know the tax system and benefits system are equivalent for couples whose legal status is common-law, which means living together for 1 year. The assessment is done because the couple has declared it or the tax people have made the determination. The Family Court appears to treat the custody/access, property and spousal support issues the same way. However, health care decisions in the situation of life threatening illnesses, inheritance and wills all seem to be different in that the common-law partner may have to have rights declared by a court or not, that are automatic for married people.

We are told that married people live longer, probably because of something about stress, but I've not seen comparison with common-law people. I am aware of some same-gender divorces, which seem equally difficult to opp-gender.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Can't inheritance issues be fully dealt with by a simple will "everything to Joe"?

Yes, but with huge differences in tax rate.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Another couple I know, he wanted to marry so her pension could be for two lives, she said no, he died first anyway... I know seniors who have moved into a marriage-like relationship without marrying. Why would they be better off formally marrying?

This one could work either way. As noted, there are spousal pension and social security benefits that would greatly benefit marriage. otoh, if one of the partners is a widow/widower or a divorced person getting alimony, often there's greater financial benefit in remaining single in order to still qualify for those benefits from a former or deceased spouse.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chive:
The best thing about not being married is being able to starfish in bed and steal all the duvet without anyone being irritated by it.

Non sequitur. It irritates me that you can do that, and we're not married.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
To say nothing of needy people who go hungry because non-couples collect more free food than they can eat and give it away to people who don't need it.

Two people are receiving the same amount of food as two families. There is no scenario where that is not fucked up.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
To say nothing of needy people who go hungry because non-couples collect more free food than they can eat and give it away to people who don't need it.
Two people are receiving the same amount of food as two families. There is no scenario where that is not fucked up.

It's a charity, not a government; handing out donated foods from grocery stores, produce slightly blemished meaning not salable in our fussy culture. The charity doesn't know each month what they will be getting to hand out. They save a lot of sorting and packing and processing time by just making all the boxes the same.

I said to a friend "you don't have to take both boxes" and she said "you don't know what's in it until you have taken it." They don't want to reject food they really can use so they take whatever is offered and then decide later what to pass on to others.

And while I know it's not the intention of the food programs, I have met a number of people dependent on a lot of help from family and neighbors and it's pretty common that they are thrilled when they can give something to their helpers instead of the relationship being always receiving.

I gave up long ago trying to figure out what's "right" in social charity. Life is too complex.

I'm just intrigued by the advantage sometimes of a couple being unmarried instead of married, and wondering what the balance is these days. Maybe different for people in different life phases.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

One advantage of not being married is that a Gospel literalist can't accuse you of committing adultery if you hook up with someone else having both been previously married.

As for the legal ramifications? I could say to my partner of 12 years,-- Hey we better get married cos I'm worried about being booted out of the house should I out-live you.
Not a terribly romantic reason to get down on one knee.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Belle Ringer,

Apologies if my reply appeared harsh. It is frustrating that the need exceeds the resources available, especially when it does not have to be that way.

rolyn,
A good relationship balance the romance with the practical. Isn't terribly romantic to leave a partner homeless or without means of support.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Are there still today practical legal reasons to marry? (as opposed to religious, sentimental, family pressure, and similar reasons.)

In the US, if only one of the couple works, and the other stays home with children or whatever, there are huge tax benefits to being married (because you file joint taxes as a couple, so get to claim larger deductions against the single income.)

If both members of the couple work at roughly similar jobs, you're a bit worse off being married (because the tax thresholds for married filing jointly are not double those for single).

Others have talked about how all the legal issues surrounding children are simpler for married parents.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

As for the legal ramifications? I could say to my partner of 12 years,-- Hey we better get married cos I'm worried about being booted out of the house should I out-live you.
Not a terribly romantic reason to get down on one knee.

No, but the reverse might be-- as in, "I don't want anything to happen to you if you should out-live me, so let's make it legal." When Robin Williams said that to Nathan Lane in The Birdcage, it was romantic in a subtle and beautiful way.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

At one time in the US married couples got a tax break, but it turned out that if both were working at relatively highly paid jobs they were still at a disadvantage. One couple I worked with figured it would cost them $10K a year in extra taxes if they got married, so they elected to spend it on travel instead. Since then the law has been changed to remove the "marriage penalty". Another couple of attorneys would get divorced each year on 30 December and remarried on 2 January - this became part of their holiday rituals, as it gave them the benefits of being married most of the year, but not on the day that counted for federal tax purposes.

Just about any sort of rules regarding eligibility for benefits will have various loopholes or circumstances that are going to be unfair in certain circumstances. That's the nature of life - there are too many different scenarios to catch them all. So you come up with a reasonable set of guidelines for the most egregious cases and live with the remainder. At the same time, it is important to consider the unintended side effects.

The high percentage of single mothers in economically depressed populations (at least in the US) has been driven to some extent by the benefits rules where a mother can only collect benefits when there isn't a man living in the house. As a result, many men have been forced to live elsewhere because the benefits provide more support for the family than they can if they are chronically underemployed. I was on a jury in a benefits fraud trial where the question was the difference between the father "living" in a flat with his family, vs. having liberal visitation rights with the children, including staying overnight. Where do you draw the line?

The trade-offs will be different for each couple. If an extra bag of groceries is more important to day-to-day survival than a lower income tax rate, I can understand that decision. (I've also known folks who volunteered at the food bank because of all the extra food they could bring home.) Others may be considering retirement or insurance benefits from a deceased spouse that terminate on remarriage, the potential cost of a divorce if it doesn't work out, the inheritance rights of a step-grand-neice, or any of a myriad of quirks in various laws and regulations that apply to them when they consider whether or not to get married. But that's their decision to make, certainly not mine.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

In the UK, cohabitation is treated the same as marriage for welfare, taxation etc purposes, and there is no tax break for being married. I think this is a good thing - it doesn't penalise the children of single parents (who can't choose whether their parents are married or not, after all) and it means people only get married because they really want to.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

One advantage of being unmarried is no in-laws.

The in-laws from my first attempt at matrimony were not only weird, but unpleasantly weird. Even after our divorce I used to get regular missives from my ex FiL castigating me for my sinfulness.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
One advantage of being unmarried is no in-laws.

You just have in-facts instead.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

With regards to starfish, that's easy - the wife goes off to work, there's plenty of time to starfish on my tod, as well as all the cuddles later. Mind you, I remember not being married, with all those benefits. I also remember not being married and having in-laws as well, or whatever they're called, in-out-laws, or something.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
... One couple I know got married (after 20 years together) when one of them got a job with health benefits so the other could be covered too. (Alas, that job didn't last long; it was a common law unregistered marriage, so they went back to insisting they weren't married.) ...

What on earth is a "common law unregistered marriage"? Is it binding? Is it only dissolvable by death or divorce? Is it bigamy if you have more than one of them?

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
... Another couple of attorneys would get divorced each year on 30 December and remarried on 2 January - this became part of their holiday rituals, as it gave them the benefits of being married most of the year, but not on the day that counted for federal tax purposes. ...

Wow! Which jurisdiction is that in? Neither our marriage nor divorce laws are that flexible, and I'm not aware of anyone arguing that they should be. It sounds like the Talaq on speed.

There's a long tradition in this country of officials from various departments responsible for different sorts of welfare snooping on women with lodgers, watching curtains, which lights go on and off etc to make sure the lodger and his landlady aren't sharing the same bedroom.

Posted by frin (# 9) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
In the UK, cohabitation is treated the same as marriage for welfare, taxation etc purposes, and there is no tax break for being married.

until you die, at which point (in the UK) there is a significant tax advantage to being a widow rather than an unmarried partner to whom things were left in a will.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

That's a morbid thought, but it's great to see you posting, frin!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Its a very serious thing.

I think nowadays it might be treated differently, but:

My parents had friends we all thought were married - not so, because the original wife refused to be divorced. When eventually legislation was enacted to help people in this situation the husband duly made application and got a [I}decree nisi[/I] but then died before being able to apply for his decree absolute.

The original wife - who'd buggered off over 30 years before got the lot: house, surviving spouse's pension, etc, etc, etc. The 'wife' of 26 year's standing was left with precious little other than her own clothes and those possessions she could prove were hers.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I am acquainted with George R.R. Martin. (Yes, that one.) As you may surmise, he came into a lot of money. It was of no importance to him and his live-in girlfriend of forty years, as long as he was an impoverished writer of schlock fiction. But as soon as major financial and estate issues came into play, they got married. (This is no particular secret; the ceremony was held at the World Science Fiction Convention several years ago.)
Estates and bequests are tons easier from a married position, and as noted above you are far better off if you are the widow rather than the main legatee.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[qb] ... One couple I know got married (after 20 years together) when one of them got a job with health benefits so the other could be covered too. (Alas, that job didn't last long; it was a common law unregistered marriage, so they went back to insisting they weren't married.) ...

quote:
What on earth is a "common law unregistered marriage"? Is it binding? Is it only dissolvable by death or divorce? Is it bigamy if you have more than one of them?

About a dozen states in USA have common law marriage, all of them have different rules. It comes I guess from frontier days when a town might see a clergy person once in 4 or 5 years. People aren't going to wait an indefinite number of years before marrying and starting a family.

In Texas all it takes to be married (assuming the usual eligibility rules such a old enough, mentally competent enough, not already married etc) is 1. you intend to be married, 2. you make a public statement that you are married, 3. you live together one night as if married. (I.e. sexual intercourse.)

Intent is usually decided by actions, so #1 is not discussed much but it protects for example someone in a play or movie, an obvious joke, etc.

#2 just means you told someone else you are married - signing a motel register "Mr & Mrs" will do it! Telling your family or friends counts too. Signing up for spousal benefits at work. Anything in public.

A marriage can be registered at the courthouse, a notorized public record. Just paperwork, no ceremony needed. That's a registered common law marriage. Most common law marriages aren't registered.

There is no common law divorce.

There's a common misconception common law marriage happens after living together 7 years. I don't know about other states, but in Texas you can live together 20 years and not be married because you always insisted you are not married, but one night is long enough to create marriage if marriage was the intent.

[ 28. November 2014, 14:43: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

If there's no 'common law divorce' doesn't that mean that there has to be a proper divorce through the courts?

If a couple deny that they are married, and that gives them tax or welfare advantages, don't the Inland Revenue or the welfare authorities challenge that, and say 'O yes you are'..

Doesn't this also lead to a lot of uncertainty about who is married to who?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If there's no 'common law divorce' doesn't that mean that there has to be a proper divorce through the courts?

If a couple deny that they are married, and that gives them tax or welfare advantages, don't the Inland Revenue or the welfare authorities challenge that, and say 'O yes you are'..

Doesn't this also lead to a lot of uncertainty about who is married to who?

Yes, divorce is through the courts.

As to uncertainty, whoever wants to apply a law that is based on marriage has the job of proving the marriage exists. The presumption about any two people is "not married." You and I for example are presumed not married to each other until someone comes up with evidence otherwise. Singleness is the default; authorities would have to prove a marriage by showing that the couple told others they were married, such as by filing a joint tax return, and yes that gets checked if anyone cares. A gay couple don't have the option to marry where I live, so they are automatically two separate households; should they insist on receiving less help than the laws entitle them to?

The only problems I've heard of are when a guy has a second woman the first doesn't know about - but that happens through formal marriages too, like if someone separates from a marriage and remarries without first getting divorced. Laws address the (limited) rights of a "putative spouse" who had good reason to believe he or she was a legitimate spouse.

Interesting pdf here on varied policies of European countries toward cohabitating unmarried couples.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The reason why there is no common law divorce is because when a couple who have lived together for a length of time there has to be a division of property, and, if kids are involved, custody and visitation as well as support that have to be decided.

A court is in place is to hopefully insure that a person going through divorce is treated fairly. Often everyone has reached a settlement prior to getting into court. The court is there to review the settlement

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am acquainted with George R.R. Martin. (Yes, that one.) As you may surmise, he came into a lot of money. It was of no importance to him and his live-in girlfriend of forty years, as long as he was an impoverished writer of schlock fiction. But as soon as major financial and estate issues came into play, they got married.

... and I'm aware of a case of factitious marriage, where, when the "husband" won the lottery, he immediately took steps to disavow the so-called marriage (so as to keep it all for himself). Which probably would have qualified for common law if the cohabitation had been long enough. I'm not precisely sure of the state's requirements where they lived.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

Very interesting thread. I didn't know a lot of this about inheritance, but it is relevant as Mr Nen and I are revisiting our wills - last made the year Nenlet2 was born and he's in further education now. [Hot and Hormonal]

My brother died three years ago and because he wasn't married to his partner she had all sorts of trouble getting access to money to pay for necessary things. The main issue was his work pension - he had named her as the beneficiary but because she wasn't his wife they originally said she wasn't entitled to it and her solicitor had to fight hard on her behalf. If she hadn't got it she wouldn't have been able to stay in their much loved and very modest home.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

rolyn,
A good relationship balance the romance with the practical. Isn't terribly romantic to leave a partner homeless or without means of support.

Point taken on romance. I thought to clarify though that in our set-up it is myself who relies on graciousness. Should my nearest and dearest outlive me she will not be without a house to live in.

Without going into TMI, after a few years when we both decided we wanted to go the distance we drew up Wills which basically went along the lines of -- what's hers is hers, and what's his is his--. We did include something about me living in the current accommodation should I be the one remaining.
One does hear these days of how easy it is for next of kin to contest wills and get them changed. This seems bizarre as I thought the whole point of a Will is that it can't be changed.

I believe there does come a stage in life where sometimes you simply have to trust in the goodness of others. I still say a rush to make things legal due to fearfulness can put a pressure on a LTR that wasn't previously there. Hence you see a lot of marriages fall apart after a short period despite being based on an LTR.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

One does hear these days of how easy it is for next of kin to contest wills and get them changed. This seems bizarre as I thought the whole point of a Will is that it can't be changed.

Legal wills are challenged all the time.

When my father died, he had very little except the house that he, my very ill mother, and my brother (who was their caretaker) lived in. There was a bit of money in the checking account, and some stocks. Dad's will divided the stocks between my brother, my sister, and me. There was also about 18K in insurance money. My brother was the beneficiary.

My sister wanted to take our brother to court over the insurance money. She was claiming that Dad signed over the insurance to our brother under some sort of duress because "there was no way that Daddy wouldn't have wanted his grandchildren (her kids) to have something!" I refused to participate. I couldn't believe that she was going to go after our brother for what would amount to 6K for each of us. The legal fees would have eaten up the proceeds, a la Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. I have kept her at arms length ever since. Dad had every right to arrange his affairs as he saw fit, and to my mind our brother deserved more because he was taking care of Dad and Mom. When my brother needed a breather, I would come and give him some respite (I lived out of state); my sister did not.

Our financial management company told us that when one of their clients died, a non-profit organization went after the will. The non-profit clearly thought that the majority of the estate should go to the organization. They claimed that since the person had given them so much money while alive, clearly the person's family members had put undue pressure on the person to "cut" the non-profit out of the will. The family is still fighting this in court.

I also have some gay friends who were elbowed aside by the family members of their partners when said partner died, wills be damned. So at a time when their worlds had come apart and they were bowed down with grief, my friends were having to lawyer up in order to keep what was rightfully theirs. That's horrendous, and I'm sure it happens to straight couples who co-habitate.

Given all this, my advice to anyone, married or unmarried, is: get a good estate lawyer and draft an airtight will, but don't be surprised if someone tries to break it. There is nothing like death to bring some people's greed and sense of entitlement to the forefront.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

I believe there does come a stage in life where sometimes you simply have to trust in the goodness of others. I still say a rush to make things legal due to fearfulness can put a pressure on a LTR that wasn't previously there. Hence you see a lot of marriages fall apart after a short period despite being based on an LTR.

The practicalities should be part of the relationship from the beginning. Not the first date, perhaps, but when the relationship begins to be serious. The "rush" is generally uneccesary. Relationships are difficult enough without planning for obvious obstacles.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

A member of our church group passed away this month. He was a widower and had been suffering from cancer for at least ten years, so he had, in theory, a simple estate and plenty of time to get it in order. Nevertheless, the heirs have found that there are at least two, perhaps three wills or codicils that look like they are legal. And there are at least ten other drafts, notes, or scribbled bequests. All of these documents say diametrically opposite things. If the kids decide to lawyer up then it's going to be chaos.

So: yeah, in an ideal universe everything's laid out neat and tight. The universe is rarely ideal.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hilda of Whitby:

I also have some gay friends who were elbowed aside by the family members of their partners when said partner died, wills be damned. So at a time when their worlds had come apart and they were bowed down with grief, my friends were having to lawyer up in order to keep what was rightfully theirs. That's horrendous, and I'm sure it happens to straight couples who co-habitate.

Yes indeed. The opposite happens, too. Deceased leaves bulk of money to family in will, but co-habitee elbows his or her way in and demands the lion's share of the estate based on being a live-in provider of sexual comfort.

My view, in the case of couples who are legally able to marry, is quite straightforward. If they have chosen not to entangle their legal affairs in marriage, then they don't get to go crying for the protections of marriage after the fact.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... My view, in the case of couples who are legally able to marry, is quite straightforward. If they have chosen not to entangle their legal affairs in marriage, then they don't get to go crying for the protections of marriage after the fact.

As it happens, I agree with you, but it isn't a fashionable view at the moment.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Thing is, if we're living in an age where wills can easily be challenged then a marriage certificate is only going to temporarily protect the spouse. It is still no insurance against squabbles between siblings post-death of the second one.

I don't think grievances just pop up for no reason at all, there is usually something simmering away in the background. If aggrieved folk should choose to slide down lawyer St. often the only one left smiling is the lawyer(s). There are sadly some cases now whereby the rancor becomes so intense the legal fees end up eclipsing the amount being fought over.

Pretty pathetic really, what's more it's never purely down to greed. There's no doubt some salutary lesson in there somewhere, not that I know what it is.
My parents used to say never have anything to do with lawyers or solicitors unless absolutely necessary.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It does depend on which country you're in. Curiously, from things shipmates have been saying, I suspect it's harder to challenge a will in England and Wales than in some other jurisdictions. Neither of the examples Hilda of Whitby cited would be a runner here.

Being married and having a certificate to prove it, will usually make it as good as impossible for anyone else to claim against a will in your favour. It can, though, enable you to claim that you should have been provided for if you haven't been given anything.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And this is a powerful reason for permitting gay marriage. Then, if the parties decide not to get married after all, it's all on them. As it stands now, appalling abuses are possible.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Being married and having a certificate to prove it, will usually make it as good as impossible for anyone else to claim against a will in your favour. It can, though, enable you to claim that you should have been provided for if you haven't been given anything.

In some (maybe all) US states, a surviving spouse is entitled to half the estate unless it can be shown that a prior agreement cancels this.

Moo

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0