Wondering if the vast majority of married / non-married couples go that route.
The vast majority? Where do you live? I don’t know a single person who has one.
Never heard of one but it sounds like a pretty good idea at least to find common ground but an explicit exit strategy for violating terms seems awkward to say the least.
They aren’t designed for married couples, so that would be about zero percent of them. And I suspect it is still relatively rare for unmarried couples in the United States. I have personally never known a single person that has bothered with them, but then I have known relatively few people who have cohabited for years with no intent to get married (I have known one couple in that boat, but they eventually did get married after having a kid a few years in).
There are of course also competing mechanisms like common-law marriage in a few states in the U.S. and in places like Australia de facto relationships that trigger from cohabitation.
I think interest in these increased substantially after the Marvin lawsuit:
Info about various issues related to cohabitation in the US.
Exactly. Cohabitation agreements are, as I understand it, intended to cover the sorts of things that, at least in U.S. law, are already generally covered by pre-existing laws on marital property, etc.
Prenuptial agreements are a thing, but I think those are pretty rare, too, and probably limited to couples where one or both couples are entering into the marriage with significant financial assets.
I think this is likely the issue. I would suspect that legal contracts only become particularly necessary if the unmarried couple buy real estate (or other significant assets) together, and/or have a child together.
So you meet a new person, and you like to have them around, so you move in together and the first thing you talk about is what happens when you break up?
Life does not work like that.
Is that what is called a “lavender marriages?” I know those were originally for gay people to marry someone to seem straight but the marriage was one of convenience and not love.
I have read they are becoming popular with hetero people now for financial reasons.
For many young people right now, the dating scene is rough, their families are far away, and housing is expensive.
To share the load, some have become intrigued by the concept of “lavender marriages” — something that was once the preserve of the LGBTQ+ community.
The term was originally coined in the early 20th century to describe a union between a man and a woman in which one or both partners were homosexual as a way to hide their sexual orientation from society.
But on social media recently, the term “lavender marriages” has been appropriated by some Gen Zers who are tired of being broke, single, and lonely.
Thanks folks for all the links so far.
Not really, I don’t think. “Lavender marriages” (or, “marriages of convenience”) were/are a way for two people who aren’t romantically involved to gain the legal benefit of a marriage, as well as (historically) for the gay/lesbian person in such a marriage to avoid social persecution by presenting as straight. Such a couple is legally married.
What the OP seems to be asking about is a cohabiting, romantically-involved couple who are not married, and who have no immediate intention to get married, to enter into a legal agreement – which is, explicitly, not a marriage – to define legal rights for both members of the partnership. As noted, this is typically done for defining issues like property ownership, child custody, etc.
Exactly, and I should have made that clear in the OP, in which I had naively thought it included married couples. Other “etc.” would be like investments (biggest factor in my case), acquisition of material assets before and during relationship…
Luckily there’s neither property nor dependent issues.
The closest I know is a couple where one person had no intention of ever getting married - but he would never have signed a co-habitation agreement that said anything other than “what’s mine is mine”. Although come to think of it, I have known a few people in long-term relationships who neither lived together nor got married and I suspect that in some or all of those cases, the reason they didn’t get married was specifically because someone didn’t want the various rules that go along with marriage to come into play. For example, I cannot disinherit my husband without him signing a waiver which a judge may or may not recognize after my death. So the best way for me to ensure that my children from a prior relationship inherit all my assets is to not get married.
I don’t think that cohabitation agreements covering property division and child support are common at all. Courts are going to decide child support even if there is no agreement, property ownership is going to give each person a percentage based on exactly how the property is owned ( in my state “joint tenants” each own an equal share , while “tenants” in common can own unequal shares.) But if you are talking about agreements outlining how much each person contributes to the rent , or that A will pay the rent and B will pay utility bills, or that all household expenses will be split on half etc, those might be slightly more common.
I have friends who entered into a legal domestic partnership agreement. It was a group of three people, and also, one of those people is very opposed to marriage.
I don’t think it was so detailed as to list out who paid how much for groceries. But it did specify that the two who had jointly paid for the house retained ownership of the house.
And when the two who owned the house split up with the other one, they paid something like alimony, for a limited time. Oddly, having that legal structure probably made it easier for the thruple to split up, as i think one of them would have been wracked by guilt if they’d just dumped the third.
Is that what you mean by a cohabitation agreement?
I’d also argue that “marriage” is a form of cohabitation agreement.
I’m aware of a former member of the Denver Broncos professional football team who was negotiating a cohabitation agreement with a girlfriend. I am not sure if he ended up agreeing to it (or if they are still together), but it was based on the fact that she was planning on moving in with him, although they were not getting married. He, of course, had millions of dollars in the bank, so he considered it important to protect his assets.
Kropotkinskaya and I have been together for 40 years without, as they say, benefit of clergy. We do have what we refer to as our “pre-nup agreement,” though it is not written. It contains one clause: that I am responsible for anything to do with cleaning up barf and/or poop. The rest gets settled as we go. So far, it’s worked out.
None of the unmarried couples I have known has had a actual, formal, legally binding agreement. This includes the two lawyers I know who were living together. Separate bank accounts and strong verbal agreement about who pays for what worked well enough for them
On the other hand, K and I have had joint accounts for 39.5 years now.
Reading up on it, it seems that to eventually split assets, ask for “alimony” &c. for unmarried couples living together, some states require a contract. Otherwise as Willy Wonka said, “You get nothing.” And let’s face it, if you can’t have that (uncomfortable) conversation, should you really be in a long-term relationship with that person?
Same here, in ten days it will be 40 yrs.
But where I live, after a certain amount of time, it’s recognized as a union, pretty much just like a marriage would be, when dividing assets, at dissolution, or estate at death, child custody etc.
We have wills, POA for everything etc, just like any married couple.
I’m not certain, if we made our own agreement, and it went contrary to what the courts routinely decide is fair, that it would stand up to a challenge in court.