4 ms·

They could just, not get married.

• kweks 7y ago
  In many Common Law countries, you are automatically considered to be in a de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example) Obviously designed to protect the rights of people in this situation long term, it's also rather frightening.
  • dijit 7y ago
    In Sweden there is a special word "Sambo", if someone lives with you (in a relationship context) for 6mo+ then they're entitled to 50% of your home, it also applies if you buy a home with the intent of living with someone. Or, at least this is what I've been told, I don't speak Swedish enough to read the relevant law myself but it's been corroborated by enough people I trust.
    • username90 7y ago
      No, that is not true. Sambolagen is for when a couple gets a new place to live in, not for when someone moves into the others home. Basically it makes a difference between assets acquired as a part of the Sambo relationship and assets acquired as a private person. So if X owns a home, then meets Y and they both start living in X's home, if they split up X will still own all of it. However if X buys a home for X and Y to live in, then it doesn't matter that Y didn't pay anything the home is still owned 50/50 according to Sambolagen. X can avoid this by making a written statement that the home belongs to X signed by Y.
      • LunaSea 7y ago
        That's incredibly stupid but I'm not surprised that it exists in Sweden. Nothing should entitle Y to any percent of ownership of the house.
        • maaaats 7y ago
          You should know the context before saying "nothing". The reason most laws like these exist, is because it used to be more normal to have a stay-at-home-mom, and the male making all the money. Just because the woman didn't contribute with cold, hard cash to the household, she still contributed.
          • LunaSea 7y ago
            I do know the context and sure there is a contribution but not necessarily at the same level.
    • H8crilA 7y ago
      This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality? Similar to the evergreen debates on contracting vs employment - the reality of the relationship should decide, not the title of the contract. Also often your parents can sue you for alimony if they can no longer support themselves in their old age, just like a child can sue a parent. Family law can get you by surprise.
      • Barrin92 7y ago
        >This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality? because automatically tying personal and romantic relationships and property arrangements together seems odd to people who want to keep them apart, just like some people might not want to have any relationship with their family any more and don't want to fiscally depend on them, or the other way around. It seems archaic to me to have some sort of parallel informal and customary law based on kinship that you're automatically opted into.
        • H8crilA 7y ago
          That's exactly what I meant by "Family law can get you by surprise.". It's not there to protect you, like HR is not there to protect you. Just keep the ship going.
  • Blackstone4 7y ago
    > de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example) I looked this up and it's not true. If there are no explicit documents, the court will interpret what the intention of the couple were in terms of ownership. If the property is in one person's name, that person tends to keep the property. If the property is put in both names then it is split 50/50.
    • kweks 7y ago
      Thank you.. you're correct, but there are some nuances. The defacto status is a qualitative status. My statement of 6 months is incorrect: it is two years of cohabitation, unless there is a child, or other circumstances. In regards to splitting assets, there is no hard and fast rule: meaning it could slice either way. https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/defacto/ https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/family-law/defacto/
      • zxcmx 7y ago
        In NZ it’s 3 years of de-facto but the “family home” (even if one partner brought it freehold into the relationship) gets split 50/50. It’s complicated because even prenups can be overturned if one partner experiences regret and the courts decide the prenup wasn’t “fair”. The law is surprising enough to enough people that they’re looking at changing it.
  • tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    it's also rather frightening I suppose that depends on which side of the financial scales you are on.
    • kweks 7y ago
      Surely the uncertainty is scary for both sides! Frightening if you contributed less financially but risk to lose your house, etc. Frightening if you contributed more financially and risk to lose your house, etc.