bats

I'm curious about the reasons why people don't get married but live together long term in a "common law" relationship.

Years ago I shared a home and mortgage with a man and we made all sort of noises at the time about not needing a piece of paper etc. We spilt up and he married the new woman. Some years later I met my other half and we married. We did want that piece of paper and somehow it does give us an extra bond. The ex seems to have felt that it was something more too
​​​​​​ I wonder why a couple with children don't marry so that there are the same rights for each spouse as in a marriage it at least to make.life simpler if one of you poos your clogs

plasticcanuck

Vulcanoid

We wouldn't gain any additional legal rights or obligations by doing it. We don't like fuss, and spending money we don't need to. So why bother? It would just be for the party at which we'd feel kindof awkward.

We've discussed it on and off when it seemed relevant, and if it was necessary for some legal reason then we'd organize a small courthouse & call friends afterwards to see who could join us in the pub. That was the outline plan for if I was going to sponsor my partner to Britain (as it requires a two year living together before you sponsor unmarried, whereas his Tier 5 allowed us to easily meet Canada's 1 year requirement). We would have regretted not doing it had I died before we left the UK, as one of my local government death funds would only pay out to a married partner or (again) 2 year living together for common law, but that seemed a low risk.

One year living together got us Federal rights for Canada, two years got us government rights for Britain, and BC. In addition, the same splitting of assets and debt obligations (if we had any) would occur in BC now as would if we were married (again, kicks in after 2 years).

If there were something that specifically required marriage, we'd look at it again, and it would be something we'd do if eg there were next of kin protections or requirements that needed it. Legally and logically, as things stand it wouldn't change anything about our status. So there's simply no point.

(This answer is valid for our situation. Common law recognition and obligations vary by country, and by jurisdiction within that country, eg there's a court case from Quebec called A where the Supreme Court found Quebec was justified in not providing to common law couples the protections of marriage, as they had chosen not to contract into marriage when they could have. Quebec couples in long term relationships should probably get married or at least draw up a binding agreement about how they'd split things on separation)

Almost Canadian

Does BC enable the same rights for unmarried couples that have lived together for two years as it does to married couples when it comes to things such as inheritance and entitlement to things such as pensions when one party dies intestate? I know that division of matrimonial property is treated the same.

Vulcanoid

So far as BC is concerned, a couple who have been living together for 2 years or more and a couple who have paperwork calling them married are legally indistinguishable. Division of property on separation, inheritance upon death, etc, it's all exactly the same.

So far as BC is concerned, my partner and I may as well be married. There is literally no difference in the way we are treated by the Provincial government. Canada Pension Plan also pays out to a common law spouse or a married spouse in the exact same way.

If there was a legal difference, particularly one that risked having an impact, we'd probably get married (as I said above, Quebec couples probably should, and I have no idea what the rules are in eg Sask, Scotia, or PEI). For long-term couples in BC, the only thing it would change is that we'd have done a physical act of going somewhere and signing paperwork - our legal and financial position afterwards would be identical to what it is now.

I'm not saying marriage is pointless - even in BC there could well be situations where you intended to become longer-term, but wanted to lock it in before the 2 year mark, for example to protect one partner who was stopping working. This is purely my (our) answer to the question posed of 'why not do it?'. I call him my husband - he functionally is.

dbd33

I've been married twice and lived in two additional common law relationships, each of seven years, each while my first marriage was not dissolved. I was not aware of any practical difference between the marriages and the long term partner relationships. For example, I sponsored one of the common law partners to Canada just as I might have done had I been married to her and not to someone else. If there are legal differences between common law and married statuses in Ontario they are minor and obscure. In these cases the common law relationships had that status because I wasn't willing to pay the legal fees to dissolve the marriage.

bats

​​​​​​
if I've understood what I've read non Marie's couples don't get to divide property and possessions equally. You take away what you brought in unless you go to court to prove that you contributed. Also you need a will as there's no automatic inheritance.

I'm more interested in the why, why decide to marry instead of cohabiting? If a couple is living together why do they decide to get married? Especially given that the legal rights aren't greatly different?
What if couples where one wants to marry but the other won't. If this difference important?

dbd33

I thought financial matters were equal after two years but you may be right, I don't have specific knowledge of the matter. I think everyone needs a will but it's a bloody production to set one up. I concede that my affairs aren't tidy but even if you just want to leave everything to one person with whom there's a reasonable risk of coincident death there's a lot of thinking to do, especially if you're living abroad. Automatic inheritance isn't that automatic, btw, my understanding is that banks won't release assets to the person who inherits unless there's a will or some reasonable expense legal documents (mind my source for that is writing my will so he's not an uninterested party).

I can answer the final point, my first common law partner (of those mentioned above) got fed up with us not being married and left so, yes, the difference is important to some people.

scilly

Financial matters can be sticky even if you are married!

OH and I have been married over 50 years, we've long had a separate bank account each as well as joint accounts. Two years ago, we made new wills using a different lawyer and he recommended very strongly that we add each other's name to those separate accounts. His rationale was that banks could refuse access to a separate bank account if the holder died and the partner was not either named as co-owner or as beneficiary. That refusal could take months to sort out (in his experience), and was a hassle that no-one needed to have.

Having both names on the account meant that the survivor could access the account and therefore any money immediately.

In the same way it was important to ensure that the other was named as beneficiary on all insurance policies, TFSAs, etc etc

This lawyer also asked us if we thought our daughter would take legal action when she discovered that she was not receiving the bulk of our estate ............. money instead going to her son in trust and to some charities as well as quite a large amount to her (plus all our "goods and chattels").

He said he had to ask, as it did happen with some frequency.

The wife of a close friend died very suddenly about 4 years ago, they had a file each that they called "When the bus hits". The file listed all accounts, credit cards, etc, where they were, passwords if necessary, what was needed to be done, where to go first, etc etc etc. Each of them updated their file every year. All our friend had to do was to go to his wife's file and check off each step.

There was still a major mistake ............. suddenly his pensions were not paid into the bank. The bank manager discovered that head office had notified BC that HE was the one who had died! It took about 2 weeks to get everything sorted out.

It made a lot of sense to us, but we've never got round to making up our own files!


Years and years ago, when our daughter was young and in day care, there was a male parent of one of the other children who was well known for living with a woman for 2 years less a day ......... he literally would kick her out of the house if she didn't leave willingly.

I found out about him when I found a little girl crying her heart out on the street outside. She'd slipped out unnoticed .......... she was the daughter of the partner who been turned off the day before, and was missing the man who she had regarded as her father. I took her back inside, and the daycare leader said this was the second time they'd had to deal with this ......... his own son was only 4.

scrubbedexpat091

I really have no answer as to why we got married vs just living together common law, at the time of the wedding we were only 6 mos or so away from the 2 year mark in BC and would from what I know had all the same rights vs being married. My wife did want a wedding, and we did get married in Vegas at the Mandalay Bay, and they did require a marriage license in order to have a wedding there.

Oink

I think the benefits of living in a common law situation is that you can have casual crumpet on the side without having to give away half your stuff if she gets all weird.

Souvy

We are unusual on our street in that we are married. We were not going to bother but our lawyer basically told us to. Common law has no legal standing in Quebec and we both have kids that were living with our former spouses. Both kids were dependents at the time, so our assets were at risk if one of us went under a bus. We got married to protect each other.

I didn't know dbd had been married twice.

dbd33

Yes, "probability of litigation" seems to be a big factor in setting things up. There's a lot of, if you do it this way the estate is exposed to litigation from x, if you do it that way, from y". Leave everything to your spouse and the cat's home may sue because you once said "**** this, I'm leaving it to the cat's home" and didn't. I hadn't previously realized that one can litigate to break an estate on a contingency basis (naïve, devil may care, fool that I am), I assume lawyers working that niche are called hearse chasers. It's all rather depressing.

Almost Canadian

Thank you.

scrubbedexpat091

Just give it all away when still living, that is what MIL did, although not to my wife, her brother got everything, but solved the issue of problems after death.