Supreme court rules on property rights for unmarried couples

[CHIMO]

A supreme court judgment awarding a female hairdresser the overwhelming share of an Essex bungalow has redefined the property rights of unmarried couples and triggered calls for legal reform.

The unexpected ruling in the long-running case of Kernott v Jones overturns previous, strict interpretations of property titles and exposes the inadequacies of what one legal expert described as a "fairly incomprehensible" area of the law.

There are more than two million unmarried couples living together in England and Wales; almost 50% of children are now born outside marriage.

The unanimous decision by five supreme court justices makes it clear that even though the home was registered in the names of both the man and the woman, judges are permitted to substitute a fairer division of possessions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/09/court-rules-property-rights-unmarried

[iverglas]

1. that's in England ... ?

Family property rules here are provincial.

From what I recall of my family law courses many years ago -- on the eve of Ontario's overhaul of family law legislation -- the major difference between married and unmarried couples is rights to property.

I'm not married. If we split, my partner may be entitled to support, part of my pension/RRSP, etc., but he isn't entitled to a share in the house I own where we live. It's not the reason we're not married (silly patriarchal nonsense), but it's an intended effect.

At some point people really do have to be allowed to make their own choices. While some people in unmarried couples (especially women, of course) may be vulnerable, the law should not be written to treat all as if they are. My partner is an intelligent, well-informed, competent person, and if he wanted rights in my property he had the choice of seeking an agreement to that effect, acquiring his own property with his own money as I did with my money, ending the relationship, etc. For the state to come along afterward and rewrite our arrangement because someone else didn't get it right, when they too had options, would be extremely unfair.

I had a part-time secretary, briefly, who was a kinesiology master's student (we used to call it phys. ed.) engaged to a law student. They were buying a house before marrying. He had decided it should be in his name ... to protect her from liability for the mortgage if they split up, uh huh. There was no date set for their marriage; they could have gone on being "engaged" forever, as many couples do. She was a moron. Did she need protection from herself? Possibly ... but not at my expense.

(The facts of the Essex case are rather unusual and not too likely to be replicated, I would note.)

[CHIMO]

2. Yes

It is in England. But decisions seem to be able to bleed into other jurisdictions when they seem logical.

Our Old Canadian Government is intent on making rules for judges. And then jumping up and down every other week to amend or add to the rules to or for the flavour of the day.
Thought that I would post something that seemed logical, just and sensible that didn't have to come from the mouths of politicians.