U.K. May Extend Divorce Rights to Unmarried Couples

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...GO79w&refer=uk

U.K. May Extend Divorce Rights to Unmarried Couples (Update1)
May 31 (Bloomberg) -- Britain, one of the most expensive nations for a rich
man to get a divorce, plans to extend more rights to unmarried couples who
split after living together.

The Law Commission, which advises the government on changes to laws, said
it's looking into easier ways for people affected by death or a breakup to
claim lump-sum payments, routine maintenance or a share of property from a
former partner.

``More people live together outside marriage than ever before, but the law
that applies to cohabitation is unacceptably complex,'' Stuart Bridge, the
law commissioner leading the project, said in London today. ``There is a
strong case for introducing more suitable financial remedies.''

The measures, if enacted, would allow unmarried partners to seek a similar
financial settlement to people who have gone through a marriage or a civil
partnership, which applies to same- sex couples. The suggestions would
complement the Labour government's effort under Prime Minister Tony Blair to
help single mothers and poor families.

The Conservative opposition suggested the plan may dilute the value of
marriage, a concern also raised earlier by the Church of England. While both
embraced the idea of protecting women with children after a long-term
relationship, they said the details of the plan would need to be examined.

Conservative Concerns

``Marriage as an important institution in our society should be
recognized,'' said Eleanor Laing, the Conservative lawmaker in charge of
policy on women. ``Of course people who co-habit for a significant length of
time have some rights over mutually acquired assets, but there ought to
remain a distinction between co-habitation and marriage.''

In a statement, the Church of England said, ``We are content that these
proposals do not scrap the important legal and social distinctions between
marriage and cohabitation.''

Since Blair took office in 1997, the Labour government has introduced a
minimum wage, expanded pre-school programs for children, promised universal
affordable child care by 2010 and than doubled maternity leave to 12 months.
The government remains concerned about the financial well-being of single
mothers and has targeted tax benefits to help.

Currently, 4 million people are living together in unmarried partnerships
that support at least 1.25 million children. By 2031, the number of
unmarried partners will swell to 7.6 million while fewer than 20 million
will be married, according to the Government Actuary's Department.

Law Lagging Society

``The law needs to catch up with changes in society,'' said David Allison, a
solicitor at Bedford Chambers who represents Resolution, a family law
counseling charity. ``We see people every day who are in very vulnerable
positions after a breakup.''

The Law Commission said it would take views on the matter until Sept. 30,
then issue a report with suggestions for legislation by August 2007.
Parliament must pass a bill spelling out details of the plan before it can
become law.

Blair's government, which asked for the report in 2004, said it wouldn't
comment on whether it supports the measures until the commission makes final
recommendations, a spokesman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs
said.

Britain already has a reputation as one of the most lucrative places to
divorce a rich man, since the law assumes marital property should be split
evenly unless there's a good reason to do otherwise. Unlike the U.S.,
pre-nuptial agreements don't have standing before British courts.

Lucrative for Divorce

The rules have produced big-money payouts to the poorer half of couples in
recent cases. Last week, the High Court granted Melissa Miller, 36, a 5
million-pound ($9.4 million) settlement after the dissolution of a
three-year marriage that produced no children with New Star Asset Management
Ltd.'s Alan Miller.

For long-term unmarried couples, the law is less kind. Britain lacks any
provision for ``common law'' marriages, meaning partners who live together
even for decades still have no right to inheritance or property.

Three years ago, the Law Commission said Britain lagged behind France,
Canada, New Zealand and Australia in granting rights to cohabitating
partners.

In Britain, courts recognize one partner's payments toward a marital home
can lead to an interest in the property, though payment of household bills
doesn't necessarily confer any rights.

Australia's System

In Australia, the law asks claimants to prove it would be ``unconscionable''
for the partner to keep a property they paid for together. Canada's system
works on the principle of unjust enrichment while New Zealand focuses on
``reasonable expectations'' that one partner would share in the wealth.

Today, the Law Commission said the framework of remedies it's proposing
would be more limited than a divorce settlement because it wouldn't presume
an equal partnership. It also isn't clear if the rules would extend to
couples without children.

``We currently believe there is a strong case for new remedies to be made
available on separation between couples who live together with children,''
the commission said in a statement. ``We do not believe there is a clear
case for remedies to be available where cohabitants do not have children.''

The commission is asking interested groups and lawyers to suggest in which
cases there should be remedies for people without children and how long
couples should have to live together before any of the rules would apply.
The Law Society, which represents 116,000 lawyers, has suggested a two-year
threshold, the same as in Australia. New Zealand and Canada require three
years while the province of South Australia fixes the time at five years.



To contact the reporter on this story:
Reed V. Landberg in London at .

Dusty wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...GO79w&refer=uk

Lucrative for Divorce

The rules have produced big-money payouts to the poorer half of couples in
recent cases. Last week, the High Court granted Melissa Miller, 36, a 5
million-pound ($9.4 million) settlement after the dissolution of a
three-year marriage that produced no children with New Star Asset Management
Ltd.'s Alan Miller.

For long-term unmarried couples, the law is less kind.

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

- Ron ^*^

What continues to surprise me is how none of those involved in eroding
the distinction between being married and not being married give any
consideration to the INCENTIVE effects of what they are doing. It's as if
they think that the people affected by such legal changes are so stupid that
they won't adjust their behavior in reaction to a new legal situation.

Currently, apparently, men in the U.K. have adjusted their behavior to
react to their knowledge of what is likely to happen to them if they get
married and their wives then decide to divorce them. Men have decided to
live with women rather than marry them. But now, it seems, men will have to
adjust their behavior again to react to what is likely to happen to them if
they merely live with a woman and then split up.

Step by step, it seems, the legal system pushes heterosexual men away
from marriage and towards more casual sexual relationships, because that is
the only way they can protect their financial assets from their women
partners. Is there some possibility that this latest change is inspired by
pressure on politicians from the Association of British Prostitutes,
Callgirls, and Streetwalkers (ABPCS)? ABPCS members may think that the
business climate will improve once men realize that their financial
responsibilities to longtime female partners will be no different from what
they would have been if they had married the women in question. So, why not
react to the new situation by paying directly on a short-term basis for
services rendered, instead of being stuck with a lifetime obligation?

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...GO79w&refer=uk

U.K. May Extend Divorce Rights to Unmarried Couples (Update1)
May 31 (Bloomberg) -- Britain, one of the most expensive nations for a
rich man to get a divorce, plans to extend more rights to unmarried
couples who split after living together.

The Law Commission, which advises the government on changes to laws, said
it's looking into easier ways for people affected by death or a breakup to
claim lump-sum payments, routine maintenance or a share of property from a
former partner.

``More people live together outside marriage than ever before, but the law
that applies to cohabitation is unacceptably complex,'' Stuart Bridge, the
law commissioner leading the project, said in London today. ``There is a
strong case for introducing more suitable financial remedies.''

The measures, if enacted, would allow unmarried partners to seek a similar
financial settlement to people who have gone through a marriage or a civil
partnership, which applies to same- sex couples. The suggestions would
complement the Labour government's effort under Prime Minister Tony Blair
to help single mothers and poor families.

The Conservative opposition suggested the plan may dilute the value of
marriage, a concern also raised earlier by the Church of England. While
both embraced the idea of protecting women with children after a long-term
relationship, they said the details of the plan would need to be examined.

Conservative Concerns

``Marriage as an important institution in our society should be
recognized,'' said Eleanor Laing, the Conservative lawmaker in charge of
policy on women. ``Of course people who co-habit for a significant length
of time have some rights over mutually acquired assets, but there ought to
remain a distinction between co-habitation and marriage.''

In a statement, the Church of England said, ``We are content that these
proposals do not scrap the important legal and social distinctions between
marriage and cohabitation.''

Since Blair took office in 1997, the Labour government has introduced a
minimum wage, expanded pre-school programs for children, promised
universal affordable child care by 2010 and than doubled maternity leave
to 12 months. The government remains concerned about the financial
well-being of single mothers and has targeted tax benefits to help.

Currently, 4 million people are living together in unmarried partnerships
that support at least 1.25 million children. By 2031, the number of
unmarried partners will swell to 7.6 million while fewer than 20 million
will be married, according to the Government Actuary's Department.

Law Lagging Society

``The law needs to catch up with changes in society,'' said David Allison,
a solicitor at Bedford Chambers who represents Resolution, a family law
counseling charity. ``We see people every day who are in very vulnerable
positions after a breakup.''

The Law Commission said it would take views on the matter until Sept. 30,
then issue a report with suggestions for legislation by August 2007.
Parliament must pass a bill spelling out details of the plan before it can
become law.

Blair's government, which asked for the report in 2004, said it wouldn't
comment on whether it supports the measures until the commission makes
final recommendations, a spokesman for the Department of Constitutional
Affairs said.

Britain already has a reputation as one of the most lucrative places to
divorce a rich man, since the law assumes marital property should be split
evenly unless there's a good reason to do otherwise. Unlike the U.S.,
pre-nuptial agreements don't have standing before British courts.

Lucrative for Divorce

The rules have produced big-money payouts to the poorer half of couples in
recent cases. Last week, the High Court granted Melissa Miller, 36, a 5
million-pound ($9.4 million) settlement after the dissolution of a
three-year marriage that produced no children with New Star Asset
Management Ltd.'s Alan Miller.

For long-term unmarried couples, the law is less kind. Britain lacks any
provision for ``common law'' marriages, meaning partners who live together
even for decades still have no right to inheritance or property.

Three years ago, the Law Commission said Britain lagged behind France,
Canada, New Zealand and Australia in granting rights to cohabitating
partners.

In Britain, courts recognize one partner's payments toward a marital home
can lead to an interest in the property, though payment of household bills
doesn't necessarily confer any rights.

Australia's System

In Australia, the law asks claimants to prove it would be
``unconscionable'' for the partner to keep a property they paid for
together. Canada's system works on the principle of unjust enrichment
while New Zealand focuses on ``reasonable expectations'' that one partner
would share in the wealth.

Today, the Law Commission said the framework of remedies it's proposing
would be more limited than a divorce settlement because it wouldn't
presume an equal partnership. It also isn't clear if the rules would
extend to couples without children.

``We currently believe there is a strong case for new remedies to be made
available on separation between couples who live together with children,''
the commission said in a statement. ``We do not believe there is a clear
case for remedies to be available where cohabitants do not have
children.''

The commission is asking interested groups and lawyers to suggest in which
cases there should be remedies for people without children and how long
couples should have to live together before any of the rules would apply.
The Law Society, which represents 116,000 lawyers, has suggested a
two-year threshold, the same as in Australia. New Zealand and Canada
require three years while the province of South Australia fixes the time
at five years.



To contact the reporter on this story:
Reed V. Landberg in London at .

"Kenneth S." wrote in

What continues to surprise me is how none of those involved in eroding
the distinction between being married and not being married give any
consideration to the INCENTIVE effects of what they are doing. It's as if
they think that the people affected by such legal changes are so stupid
that they won't adjust their behavior in reaction to a new legal
situation.

it's all ready happening!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4294382.stm



Men have decided to live with women rather than marry them. But now, it
seems, men will have to adjust their behavior again to react to what is
likely to happen to them if they merely live with a woman and then split
up.

There's no real advantage to having a woman living with you!
Just give them a call on the weekend, see a movie, have dinner, then drop
them off before you're lured into their evil plan to entrap you for life!
LOL


So, why not react to the new situation by paying directly on a short-term
basis for services rendered, instead of being stuck with a lifetime
obligation?

Those Vegas ranches are looking better all the time!
I now tell all young men, "Don't fall into the false Love trap". There is no
more honour left anymore!

"DB" wrote in message
om...

"Kenneth S." wrote in

What continues to surprise me is how none of those involved in eroding
the distinction between being married and not being married give any
consideration to the INCENTIVE effects of what they are doing. It's as
if they think that the people affected by such legal changes are so
stupid that they won't adjust their behavior in reaction to a new legal
situation.

it's all ready happening!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4294382.stm

Men have decided to live with women rather than marry them. But now, it
seems, men will have to adjust their behavior again to react to what is
likely to happen to them if they merely live with a woman and then split
up.

There's no real advantage to having a woman living with you!
Just give them a call on the weekend, see a movie, have dinner, then drop
them off before you're lured into their evil plan to entrap you for life!
LOL

So, why not react to the new situation by paying directly on a short-term
basis for services rendered, instead of being stuck with a lifetime
obligation?

Those Vegas ranches are looking better all the time!
I now tell all young men, "Don't fall into the false Love trap". There is
no more honour left anymore!

Dang, looks like the "Marriage Strike" is working faster then a room full of
feminazis at a congressional inquiry!!

"Dusty" wrote in

Dang, looks like the "Marriage Strike" is working faster then a room full
of feminazis at a congressional inquiry!!

All young men should be fully educated in the communistic child support and
divorce laws.

Filling there heads with thoughts of having a wonderful happy family
surrounding them at Christmas time is a far fetched fairy tale these days.
Marriage is a really dumb idea for any male!