It would hardly surprise you to know that most cohabiting couples who live together don't have a written agreement governing their rights. But do you really need too?
If you are living with, or are deciding to live with your partner but are unmarried, then no matter how long you have been together, you don't have the same rights as married couples and you may have little legal protection in the event that you split up. There is no such thing as ‘common law wife/husband’, well not since 1753 and I don’t mean 7 minutes to 6pm!
In the case of property, for example, if you have a joint rental agreement or mortgage, it's up to the both of you to decide what will happen if you break up. However, if you've been living in your partner’s house, then it will not be as easy and you may be left without a place to live, even if you have been contributing to the mortgage, paying rent or paying your way in other ways (e.g. paying the utility bills, staying at home to look after the children, caring for your partner, etc.). If your name is not on the deeds then you have no right to the property!
This is where a cohabitation agreement can help. This is a contract, between two people who live together, which sets out their agreement on the division of their combined assets. It is essential for people who live together but are without the protection afforded by marriage or civil partnership. The agreement states who owns what and who contributes what and is not only important if the relationship ends, but also if one partner dies. Having a cohabitation agreement makes the consequences of splitting up a lot easier to deal with and a LOT CHEAPER without having to incur expensive legal bills!
In England and Wales there is no formal legislation which makes cohabitation agreements legally enforceable, but given that a cohabitation agreement is a contract existing between two parties, so long as it complies with the basic requirements of contract law, it should be legally enforceable. Therefore, each member of the couple is advised to take independent legal advice as to the terms and conditions of the agreement before signing it.
A cohabitee or civil partner who was in some way financially dependant upon their partner and who finds themselves without adequate provision, either because their partner died without making a Will or because a Will was made but left insufficient provision to the partner, has a potential claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
A person wishing to make a claim under the Inheritance Act must do so in very strict time limits. The person applying asks the Court to investigate the assets left by the deceased and the provision made for the applicant. The applicant will ask the Court to find that insufficient provision was made and that this should be rectified.
How much better it is to avoid all that hassle and make a cohabitation agreement.
Contact us for more information.
Friday 12 August 2011
Thursday 13 January 2011
Wednesday 5 January 2011
Son Contests Millions left to Chihuahua
The son of millionaire socialite Gail Posner has launched a challenge against the distribution of his mother’s estate after claiming that she was manipulated into changing her Will in 2008 to leave her fortune to her dogs and hired help.The Will gives her three dogs the right to live in her seven bedroom Miami mansion until they die. It also leaves $27 million to her maids, bodyguards and personal trainers and allows them to remain in the house rent free.
Her son claims that his mother ‘would never have done this unless she was under extreme influence’. Ms Posner was a victim of childhood incest and spent her life battling addiction to drugs and alcohol. Court documents describe her as being ‘a deeply disturbed recluse with serious emotional and psychological problems stemming from her history of being sexually abused’.
There were allegations that, as her health deteriorated following her diagnosis with cancer in 2005, she was imprisoned in her house and cut off from her family. Her son alleges that when the changes were made to her Will shortly before her death she wasn’t mentally capable and was blackmailed by her employees. Her son has produced video evidence from his last visit to his mother’s house where she claimed that her staff were trying to kidnap and kill her and asked her son to get her away from them.
Her son is also claiming against the loss of a $100 million trust fund that was designed to pay the income only to Ms Posner during her lifetime, leaving the capital to her children. At the time of her death she had received the money from the fund and the trust was closed in 2008. He is claiming that distributions made to his mother were not in accordance with the terms of the trust or in accordance with the wishes of the settlor. The company concerned intend to vigorously defend themselves against any allegations. Further hearings are scheduled for later in the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)