|
| |
|
Archive for the ‘Cohabitation’ Category
Wednesday, July 6th, 2011
Status has come before preference for too long: those who’d prefer to live solo or communally are pushed into pairing off
Living alone costs an extra £3,500 a year. And what do you get for your money? More time to read and stare out of the window; the ability to make a reasonable inventory of what’s in your fridge, knowing that no bugger has been at your picnic eggs; the freedom to walk about naked. You could probably find a housemate who would accept all these things for much less than £3.5k. If only we could import a few honest values of the marketplace into the hearth, things would be so much more efficient.
This news story falls into a category with “Childlessness causes breast cancer” and “Children of divorce more likely to suffer mental health problems“. There’s a faux-innocent tone, “don’t yell at me, I’m only passing on the facts”, which is hard to argue: these are merely facts. But just as you would never have a child in order to avoid cancer, and just as a desire for one’s children to enjoy sound mental health would probably not be enough to avert marital breakdown, so the causal link here – between living alone and spending more – might be sound, but its proportions are off. And nobody thinks you could use a calculator to decide who to live with: a story like this isn’t for the purposes of information; its purpose is to concatenate behaviour that runs against the norm with negative consequence.
Solitary living has fluctuating status, according to how old you are and, to a lesser degree, your sex. If you’re young, it’s taken to be a sign of success, since materially it is. As we can see it’s very expensive, so if you can undertake it under 30, you must be on a fast track to somewhere. A quotation often attributed to (though never said by) Thatcher – “a man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus, can count himself a failure” – distills this belief, which might be why it’s stuck in the national psyche. The ambitious young person wants a private space in which to determine his or her direction of travel – collectivisation is for losers.
But communal living among the young is acceptable as well. So many people do it, after all, and seem to enjoy it and remember it fondly afterwards; it would be a myopic culture that sought to portray university halls as temples of failure. Even rich people live on top of one another until they’re 25.
By the time you’re in your 30s, your living arrangements are much more proscribed. Communal living in mature adulthood is incredibly eccentric, somewhere between keeping llamas and being polyamorous. Single living is suddenly frowned on, especially for women. Unfairly, pets also suffer the taint of failure here: the primetime comedy trope, endlessly recycled, of the spinster living alone with her cats is often needlessly insulting to the cat, as if a better class of feline would find a family to live with. Men can get away for longer in their bachelor pads, but again, age tarnishes the image – at 40 you’re living the dream, at 50 you’re just a lonely guy with incredibly long toenails.
If we accept that having a family is the desired norm, a lot of these preconceptions are based round the trajectory that culminates in procreation: you become financially secure, and prove it by having your own place; you attract a mate, and prove that by making them live with you; you have kids, and then live in a nuclear three- or foursome.
But there is so much that is arguable, here, which is never argued. Even leaving aside that central structure – the primacy of childbearing, which may be hardwired but surely a sophisticated mind should be able to unwire it – why is living alone considered lonely when a) a lot of people like it, and b) the loneliest way to live in the recorded history of mankind is with one other person who you don’t get on with?
And why is living communally never considered, outside education, nursing homes and sitcoms? I don’t think one’s domestic identity changes that much over time – if you are temperamentally suited to an eight-strong house when you’re 20, I bet you are at 40.
It’s because a respectable household has to do more than just propagate the species; the other footfall of cultural expectation concerns money. What would your domestic arrangement look like, at each phase of your life, if money were no object? Since living like sardines is cheaper, status attaches to small households – the fewer of you there are, the more successful you must be.
I find myself in the irksome position of agreeing with a member of government, housing minister Grant Shapps, who said this week that so-called mates mortgages could be the solution to the insurmountable costs facing first-time buyers. Why not buy a house with friends? Why haven’t we been doing this for years?
For too long, status has come before preference. Those of us who’d prefer to live in gangs have instead paired off into twos, lemming-like in our conformity, but in the outcome, in our small, traditional households, un-lemminged. People who prefer to live alone at least have the independence of spirit to do so; £3,500 is a small price to pay for a mind of your own.
Posted in Cohabitation, Comment, Comment is free, House News, Life and style, Money, Property, The Guardian, UK news | Comments Closed
Saturday, May 7th, 2011
The case of Patricia Jones, ordered to hand half her home to her ex after 18 years, should be a warning to all unmarried couples
There are three things that definitely do not exist, according to the website advicenow.org.uk: the Loch Ness monster, cats’ nine lives and common law marriage. Patricia Jones, the woman at the centre of last week’s Supreme Court case to determine what share her former cohabiting partner is entitled to in the family home, has learned this the hard way.
Jones and her ex, Leonard Kernott, split up in 1993 after sharing a home in Thundersley, Essex, for eight years. Jones paid the £6,000 deposit and mortgage on the £30,000 bungalow while Kernott paid £100-a-week “expenses”.
He moved out in 1993, paying no maintenance for their two children, now both in their 20s. Jones continued paying the mortgage and Kernott brought his own property in 1996, raising the deposit by cashing in a life insurance policy the couple owned and split equally.
In 2008 a county court judge determined that Kernott was entitled to 10% of the property’s value – estimated then at £240,000. He appealed last year and was awarded 50% on the grounds that the couple owned equal shares when they separated and neither had done anything to change the situation since.
Jones hopes the Supreme Court will reverse this decision. But Elizabeth Darlington, a barrister based in Leeds specialising in cohabitee cases, says cases concerning the distribution of cohabitees’ assets often end with results contrary to common sense or fairness.
One client, a policeman, sold his property and put £83,700 into a new property he bought in joint names with his new partner. Because the home was in joint names, they both got 50% of its value when they split, even though she had contributed no equity.
However, it is usually women who lose out, says Darlington – often because ownership of the home is in the man’s name. She cites a couple who bought a home in the man’s name because the woman was still going through a divorce “with the intention that the money she got from the divorce, £60,000, would be her contribution”. Instead the money was used to buy other things, including a sports car for the male partner, and when they split 10 years later he walked away with the entire value of their home.
It doesn’t have to end like this if you take steps to protect yourself early on:
? Buying a home Get legal advice – how you establish ownership can make a big difference if you split up. If you own your home as joint tenants, you own it jointly and equally. If you split up and sell it, you will normally get half, no matter how much you contributed. If one of you dies the other will automatically get the house. If you buy as tenants in common you can own uneven shares in the property. If one dies his or her share will go to the beneficiary named in the will.
In all cases, if there are children a court can order the transfer of the home to the parent mainly looking after them. If part or all of the home is owned by the other it will revert to that partner when the youngest child turns 18.
? Renting a home Consider putting both names on the tenancy. If only one is named that person can evict the other if you split up. If the named person leaves the remaining partner can ask the landlord to put his or her name on the tenancy – but he doesn’t have to agree.
? Draw up a living together agreement This forms a record of what each party is contributing to the household. A court can ignore it but will generally uphold it if what you agreed produces a fair outcome, neither party was under pressure and you were honest about your finances when drawing it up. If you have it drawn up by a solicitor and independently witnessed it will be legally binding.
? Make a will Without one, your property and assets will all go to your blood relations if you die, and your partner may not even be able to stay in your home.
? Children If you are the father of children born before 1 December 2003 and have not married their mother you do not have parental responsibility unless you make an agreement with the mother or apply for a court order. Fathers named on the birth certificates of children born after that date automatically have parental responsibility.
? Visit the Living Together section of advicenow.org.uk for advice and a template for a living together agreement.
Posted in Cohabitation, Family finances, House News, Life and style, Money, News, Property, Renting property, The Observer, UK news, Writing a will | Comments Closed
Friday, May 6th, 2011
Essex bungalow at heart of test case over how unmarried partners who split up should divide their property
A bungalow in Essex is at the heart of a test case over how unmarried partners who split up should divide their property.
The supreme court decision on whether the assets should be shared 50/50 or predominantly awarded to the woman who alone paid the mortgage for 13 years could influence the rights of millions of couples.
Five supreme court justices will have to resolve whether a court can decide what consitutes a fair distribution between Leonard Kernott and Patricia Jones, who separated in 1993 after sharing the home in Thundersley, Essex, for eight years.
There are thought to be two million unmarried couples living together in England and Wales and the case is being eagerly followed by family lawyers.
Kernott, 51, an icecream salesman, moved out after the break-up, leaving Jones, 56, to pay the mortgage, maintain the house – valued at £240,000 in 2008 – and bring up the couple’s two children, the court heard.
In 2008, a county court judge sitting in Southend ruled that Jones should get 90% of the value of the house and her former partner 10%. That decision was upheld by the high court in London in 2009.
Last year, the court of appeal overturned the lower courts’ rulings, deciding that Kernott was entitled to half the value of the house because the couple owned equal shares when they separated and neither had done anything to change the situation since.
One appeal judge, Lord Justice Wall, said the case was a “cautionary tale”, which all unmarried couples contemplating buying homes together should study.
Lawyers for Jones are seeking to overturn the appeal court decision. The court heard that Kernott, now of Benfleet, Essex, had waited until his children were grown before making a claim on his old home in 2006.
The judges wrestled with what constituted fairness, acknowledging that different couples had different ideas of what constituted a just division of their shared possessions.
“There will be some couples who think only in terms of financial contribution,” observed Baroness Hale, a supreme court justice. “They will think it only fair that the beneficial interest should reflect their contributions.
“There will be other couples who think that’s nonsense and that they contribute in other ways. Most couples do not make identical financial contributions. So one is trying to see what this couple thought is fair, not impose the court’s view.”
But another justice raised the question: “How can you get a common intention, even of the most spectral sort, when the [couple] have not spoken to each other for 15 years?”
Family lawyers have been urging the need for clearer precedents in the runup to the hearing. Meredith Thompson, a family law specialist at national law firm Mills & Reeve, said: “The law relating to the property interests of cohabiting couples is currently an unsatisfactory muddle.
“It relies on an unholy mix of express and implied trusts, and in some circumstances enables a court to retrospectively infer what the parties intended as to the ownership even if they intended nothing of the sort.
“If the supreme court upholds the court of appeal’s decision that joint ownership means a 50/50 split, this will put a stop to the recent tendency of the courts to infer intentions of the property owners as to how they share the equity in property.
“This will amount to a strict interpretation of property law and an end to judges attempting to introduce some element of fairness into what can be a very harsh reality for some people.”
After hearing argument from both sides, the supreme court reserved judgment to a later date.
Posted in Cohabitation, House News, Law, Life and style, Money, News, Property, The Guardian, UK news, UK supreme court | Comments Closed
Thursday, May 5th, 2011
How to protect yourself financially in case you and your partner split up
The website advicenow, which runs a Living Together campaign to make cohabitants more aware of their legal status, points out that there are three things that don’t exist: the Loch Ness monster, cats’ nine lives and common law marriage.
Couples who live together have hardly any rights compared with married couples or civil partners, and most only discover this when their relationship has broken down or their partner has died.
But there are things you can do to protect yourself, provided you are sensible about recognising that you might one day split up, however romantic your relationship is now.
1. Buying a home
Get advice from a solicitor – how you establish ownership of your home can make a big difference to your rights if you split up.
If you own your home as joint tenants, you own it jointly and equally. If you split up and sell it, you will normally get half, no matter how much you contributed to it. If one of you dies, the other will automatically inherit the other half.
If you buy your home as tenants in common, you can own uneven shares in the property, so one partner could own 40% and the other 60%. If one of you dies, that person’s share will go to the beneficiary named in the will.
But even if the property is owned in one person’s name, it is still possible for the other partner to prove they are entitled to a share if they split up. To prevent unpleasant surprises, draw up a living together agreement on moving in that sets out what you have agreed about the home. If you do not intend the non-owner to get a share, spell this out very clearly, or if you do intend to share the home, spell out the shares very clearly.
In all cases, if there are children a court can order the transfer of the home to the parent who is mainly looking after them under the Children Act 1989 to ensure the children are housed. If part or all of the home is still owned by the other partner, however, it will revert to that partner when the youngest child reaches the age of 18.
2. Renting a home
Consider putting both names on the tenancy. If only one is named, that person can evict the other if the couple split up, although reasonable notice should be given. If the named person decides to leave, the remaining partner can ask the landlord to put his or her name on the tenancy, but he doesn’t have to unless ordered by court because you are vulnerable or have children.
3. Draw up a living together agreement
This is the cohabiter’s equivalent of a pre-nup, forming a record of what each party is contributing to the household. The Advice Now website points out that it can help you sort out the day-to-day workings of living together, as well as enabling you to split up with a minimum of squabbling.
Like pre-nups, a court can decide to ignore the agreement, but it will generally uphold it if what you agreed still produces a fair outcome for both of you, neither party was under pressure from the other and you were both honest about your finances when drawing it up.
However, James Thornton, partner with Stowe Family Law in Harrogate, says if you have it drawn up by a solicitor as a formal legal deed and independently witnessed, it will be legally binding just like any other legal contract.
4. Make a will
This is imperative if you want your partner to benefit from any of your assets or even to be able to stay in your home. However long you live together, all your property and assets will go to your blood relations rather than your partner if you die.
5. Children
If you are the father of children born before 1 December 2003 and you have not married their mother, you do not automatically have parental responsibility for them. This means you do not have the right to be consulted for big decisions concerning their lives, such as caring for them if the mother dies or making decisions about medical treatment. Fathers in this position can either make an agreement with the mother or apply to court for an order if she refuses to agree. Fathers who are named on the birth certificates of children born after that date will automatically have parental responsibility.
6. Beware of relying on your partner’s savings for your retirement
You will have no right to these if you split up, and if your partner dies, some pension schemes do not pay survivor’s benefits to unmarried partners. Nick Bamford, of independent financial adviser Informed Choice, suggests cohabitants try to build up separate pensions: even those who are not earning can save up to £2,880 a year into a personal pension, and this will benefit from a further £720 in tax relief.
7. Ongoing financial support
If the couple have had children, the parent looking after them, typically the mother, can apply for child maintenance through the Child Support Agency providing she can prove paternity, says Thornton. However, as a cohabiter she is not usually entitled to financial support herself.
8. Visit the Living Together section of Advice Now
This contains information on all aspects of how to establish a safe and secure cohabiting relationship, and a template for a living together agreement.
Posted in Cohabitation, Family finances, Family law, Features, guardian.co.uk, House News, Law, Life and style, Money, Prenups, Property, Relationships, Renting property, Savings, Writing a will | Comments Closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Living alone is pricey, but all households have their cost | Zoe Williams
Wednesday, July 6th, 2011Status has come before preference for too long: those who’d prefer to live solo or communally are pushed into pairing off
Living alone costs an extra £3,500 a year. And what do you get for your money? More time to read and stare out of the window; the ability to make a reasonable inventory of what’s in your fridge, knowing that no bugger has been at your picnic eggs; the freedom to walk about naked. You could probably find a housemate who would accept all these things for much less than £3.5k. If only we could import a few honest values of the marketplace into the hearth, things would be so much more efficient.
This news story falls into a category with “Childlessness causes breast cancer” and “Children of divorce more likely to suffer mental health problems“. There’s a faux-innocent tone, “don’t yell at me, I’m only passing on the facts”, which is hard to argue: these are merely facts. But just as you would never have a child in order to avoid cancer, and just as a desire for one’s children to enjoy sound mental health would probably not be enough to avert marital breakdown, so the causal link here – between living alone and spending more – might be sound, but its proportions are off. And nobody thinks you could use a calculator to decide who to live with: a story like this isn’t for the purposes of information; its purpose is to concatenate behaviour that runs against the norm with negative consequence.
Solitary living has fluctuating status, according to how old you are and, to a lesser degree, your sex. If you’re young, it’s taken to be a sign of success, since materially it is. As we can see it’s very expensive, so if you can undertake it under 30, you must be on a fast track to somewhere. A quotation often attributed to (though never said by) Thatcher – “a man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus, can count himself a failure” – distills this belief, which might be why it’s stuck in the national psyche. The ambitious young person wants a private space in which to determine his or her direction of travel – collectivisation is for losers.
But communal living among the young is acceptable as well. So many people do it, after all, and seem to enjoy it and remember it fondly afterwards; it would be a myopic culture that sought to portray university halls as temples of failure. Even rich people live on top of one another until they’re 25.
By the time you’re in your 30s, your living arrangements are much more proscribed. Communal living in mature adulthood is incredibly eccentric, somewhere between keeping llamas and being polyamorous. Single living is suddenly frowned on, especially for women. Unfairly, pets also suffer the taint of failure here: the primetime comedy trope, endlessly recycled, of the spinster living alone with her cats is often needlessly insulting to the cat, as if a better class of feline would find a family to live with. Men can get away for longer in their bachelor pads, but again, age tarnishes the image – at 40 you’re living the dream, at 50 you’re just a lonely guy with incredibly long toenails.
If we accept that having a family is the desired norm, a lot of these preconceptions are based round the trajectory that culminates in procreation: you become financially secure, and prove it by having your own place; you attract a mate, and prove that by making them live with you; you have kids, and then live in a nuclear three- or foursome.
But there is so much that is arguable, here, which is never argued. Even leaving aside that central structure – the primacy of childbearing, which may be hardwired but surely a sophisticated mind should be able to unwire it – why is living alone considered lonely when a) a lot of people like it, and b) the loneliest way to live in the recorded history of mankind is with one other person who you don’t get on with?
And why is living communally never considered, outside education, nursing homes and sitcoms? I don’t think one’s domestic identity changes that much over time – if you are temperamentally suited to an eight-strong house when you’re 20, I bet you are at 40.
It’s because a respectable household has to do more than just propagate the species; the other footfall of cultural expectation concerns money. What would your domestic arrangement look like, at each phase of your life, if money were no object? Since living like sardines is cheaper, status attaches to small households – the fewer of you there are, the more successful you must be.
I find myself in the irksome position of agreeing with a member of government, housing minister Grant Shapps, who said this week that so-called mates mortgages could be the solution to the insurmountable costs facing first-time buyers. Why not buy a house with friends? Why haven’t we been doing this for years?
For too long, status has come before preference. Those of us who’d prefer to live in gangs have instead paired off into twos, lemming-like in our conformity, but in the outcome, in our small, traditional households, un-lemminged. People who prefer to live alone at least have the independence of spirit to do so; £3,500 is a small price to pay for a mind of your own.
Posted in Cohabitation, Comment, Comment is free, House News, Life and style, Money, Property, The Guardian, UK news | Comments Closed