Many couples today decline marriage but what happens when financially lopsided couples who decline the protections of marriage, break up? Wealthy individuals or those who anticipate large inheritances may want to protect their assets. Likewise, those who enter into a relationship and sacrifice time and effort in supporting it in non-financial ways will want to ensure their security should a break-up occur.
The recent Pew Research Center study found that 39 percent of Americans say marriage is becoming obsolete. Like most states, New York does not recognize common law marriage and does not allow same sex marriage or civil unions. Therefore, individuals who cohabitate, even for decades, are legally considered strangers when it comes to property rights. It is therefore critical that unmarried couples who live together discuss financial expectations, personal obligations, and identify property rights should the relationship end.
Although they don't like to admit it, States often legislate or fail to do so with morals in mind. And the law looks unfavorably on people who do not marry. By declining to examine the needs of a fast growing population that has opted out of the traditional marriage setting, New York fails to protect a significant portion of its population.
So without legislation or an active judiciary, how do unmarried cohabitants protect their rights? Ms. Lisa-Nicolle Grist is the Executive Director for the Alternatives to Marriage Project, Inc., a non-profit organization that advocates for individuals who are single, cannot marry, or cohabitate. (www.unmarried.org). The organization recommends partners have cohabitation agreements, as well as wills. These agreements may be beneficial if:
• You have significant assets or an anticipated inheritance.
• You own a business or property purchased before or during the cohabitation.
• There are children from a previous relationship.
• There is an income disparity.
• You or your partner has debts.
• One person is sacrificing economic power to raise children.
• To properly compensate a caregiver.
• To clarify personal expectations of the relationship.
• To clarify financial support during the relationship or upon its dissolution.
• To specify health insurance coverage.
• To determine the right to serve as a guardian in the event of incapacitation or to make medical decisions.
• You want clarification on a variety of issues such as how expenses are handled, infidelity, and separation and death provisions.
Let's say a woman supports her boyfriend through business school. They cohabitate, but decline to marry for political reasons. After 10 years, they break-up. Over the years, his success ultimately earned him millions. In New York, a married woman has the laws of equitable distribution to protect her. The unmarried woman? Zip. Although laws are in place to protect any minor offspring of this relationship, the cohabiting woman has no property or financial rights without a written agreement. Yet the break-up rate for cohabiting couples is similar and even higher than divorce rates- 40% of will break-up within five years. One can only imagine the economic impact given the lack of safety netting involved.
The lesson? New York needs to acknowledge a trend that shows no sign of long-term reversal and examine the financial impact that occurs when a cohabiting couple break-ups in the same manner it examines the impact of divorce. New York then needs to enact appropriate legislation that protects both sides just as when a marriage ends. Until that time, cohabiting couples should contract, either by themselves or preferably with the assistance of an attorney, as to such as issues as financial obligations and property division upon the termination of the relationship.
I have two words for you, Liz: personal responsibility. If you choose not to get married, you're choosing to not protect yourself financially should you join finances, support the other, or accept support from the other. If a couple chooses to set some things up ahead of time, the agreements you mention can be drafted up. That's their choice.
But to assert that the state should step into people's personal lives when they clearly opt out of letting the state dictate the terms (as with marriage/divorce)? Absolutely not.
Marriage is one of the last vestiges of the Bad Old Days. Marriage is what is called in legal circles an "adhesion contract", with enormous legal obligations on the primary earner and no obligations whatsoever on the party who does little or nothing. A marriage license is like a winning lottery ticket for people who don't want to work.
Fast forward to today: cohabitation without mandatory legal contracts is a true alliance of equals. If one or the other party wants something guaranteed, it is what economists praise as an "arm's length transaction" without coercion. *This* is the way for humanity to live in an enlightened era.
Remember too that if cohabitation becomes a legal minefield for men, then men will avoid cohabitation in droves, just as they are shunning marriage. Men will simply re-route to avoid whatever traps are set for them, with increasing efficiency thanks to the Internet and info sharing.
If I want to protect my girlfriend in case something happened to me, I would name her as a beneficiary in my will: End of story.
But to form a written agreement for compensation in case our boyfriend/girlfriend relationship ends? That's just ridiculous. Thank God New York and other states don't recognize any rights for co-inhabitants.
If 2 people want to subjugate themselves to the Law of the state, they can get married.
I read recently that in France, they offer a "Civil Union" document for couples whom are co-habitatÂÂÂÂing. If the relationshÂÂÂÂip does not work out, then a simple document is given by the local government immediatelÂÂÂÂy. No costly divorce proceedingÂÂÂÂ; No expensive lawyers, and certainly no judge deciding your fate and financial future.
The best thing that men can do is meet a woman that they get along with and love and perhaps live together. If the relationshÂÂÂÂip works for many years, great. If not, at least the guy will not end up 50% poorer, as in what occurs in a divorce.
If a woman needs or expects to get married because they want security, then look for someone else. If a woman loves you, it should not matter whether you sign a piece of paper or not. But quite honestly, signing that marriage certificatÂÂÂÂe can create severe hardship on the finances of a man.
And with 70% of marriages ending in divorce, it's not worth the risk to lose 1/2 your wealth and your home.
Need proof, look at the recent video interviews of Johnny Depp and Oprah. They talk about their relationshÂÂÂips with their partners without marriage and they are very happy.
Every adult is responsible for their own way in life. Where people are incapable of supporting themselves, the role of the state is to provide a safety net.
Latching onto another person and siphoning off income and assets is wrong. That is being a parasite and there's no excuse for it today.
That is also exactly why people co-habit (and not marry). People don't WANT all this horrific legal barbed wire entangling their lives. Is it any coincidence that people are avoiding marriage in droves, to seek a relationship in its purest form, and the (ahem) marriage lawyers keep trying to convince people to wade into that bramble patch of legal contracts again?
There's that saying, attorneys thrive on other peoples' misery. It would seem to be true here.