Long term relationship, not married. I don't get it

It’s funny - as I mentioned, my wife and I had a quickie courthouse ceremony, and some of my relatives were still pissed off. Why? Because the two witnesses were on my wife’s side of the family, but none of my relatives were there. Even though I explained that it took all of 15 minutes, we didn’t have a reception (unless you count treating the attendees to Taco Del Mar), and we didn’t expect any gifts, it still took months to smooth everything over.

Some folks get all worked up over ritual and ceremony celebrating the beginning of a relationship, and they forget that it’s the lifetime of commitment that’s really worthy of celebration.

My former boss has/had lived with her “sweetie” for about 20-odd years. He had kids from a previous, she didn’t. Everybody got along with everybody, but she just couldn’t get her sweetie to make a will, change deeds on his house, get married…For all intents and purposes they were together as a couple for life, but none of that mattered when he died recently. His kids pretty much told her to pack her things and get out of the house that she had lived in for over twenty years, and by things they didn’t mean furniture unless she could prove she bought it. I don’t know the exact details about how they had pooled their incomes, but we’ve heard that she is pretty much left with nothing after all those years, and taking care of him through his illnesses the last few years. I really don’t think he wanted all that to happen, for her to be left practically destitute…he just “never got around to it” and she didn’t want to push. If you care about someone enough to share that many years living with them, you should provide for them legally, even if you don’t want to be married. We’re talking people in their fifties and sixties here, who have seen the world of hurt that being financially destitute can inflict on older people. I don’t think a fear of “being taken to the cleaners” in a divorce justifies not taking care of someone you love.

Are you talking about marriage or wills?

You’ve never been married have you? Nor been through a divorce I take it. You do know that they make you do a listing of items, each one is then valued, it’s then totaled up, then each person gets half. Now you can agree to not do that, but if one person drags their feet then the lawyers can come in. In my first divorce we started listing CDs for christ sake. I think that’s the part that you’re not understanding. Your parents probably had already done all of that because there’s no way you can walk into a courthouse, ask for a divorce and get one in a day or so without doing it. Unless of course you’d like to just walk away from everything.

There’s a lot of difference, the only reason I was able to keep my TSP is because she had a 401K that had about the same value. Had she wanted to though, because it only takes one of the two, she could have said lets look at how much you made, how much I made a split the difference.

I think it simply comes down to what you’ve seen. I’ve been fucked hard twice now. Not getting married makes sure that it can’t happen again, I know what will happen to my money at all times. It will take care of the kids that I have now and any possible kids that may come along in the future. By being single I protect everything I own. There maybe some upsides, but for me, and it seems a lot of other people, a lot of downsides to marriage.

Dogzilla, Woo hoo, after 11 years here I finally found a woman!

Actually in any long term relationship that I have, the woman will be able to decide what she wants to do. If she has a place she can keep it, she can sell it, or she can live there. She can take the money and invest it or rent it out. In such a case she also has the fall back. I don’t need or want a McMansion so I’m not going to need someone else to help me pay for the house. Think about how many people now are getting screwed now because of the housing market, they can’t sell or they are losing a ton of money.

Quite frankly I don’t see why anyone who’s been married and divorced would want to go through that again. My ex is getting ready for her third marriage and that boggles my mind.

It sounds like marriage is a business decision to you. This is fine, but you don’t consider the cost of alimony after the ‘easy, fast, cheap’ divorce. If you break up with someone, do you really want to owe them a living for an indefinite amount of time (possible longer than you would be financially responsible for your kids)? I guess if you are the one getting benefits, it is a good business decision, but if you are the one paying out…

I have to say, your approach to marriage is another reason that I am turned off by the idea.

Divorce is certainly NOT easy, fast or cheap.

That said, OP – I’m with you on this one. Cliches like “we don’t need a piece of paper to prove our commitment” just doesn’t cut it with me; I’m an old-fashioned gal.

Rar. Get offa my lawn!

Thank God my mom was married to my dad, because she will be eligible for file for Social Security (and Railroad Retirement) earnings against his earnings record, which is probably 4x or more what hers is. Yeah, it would be nice if their records had been more equal, and it would be nice if she hadn’t waived alimony (because she “didn’t want his money,” which I can respect, but which didn’t do good things for her post-divorce financial situation), and it would be nice if she’d gotten the house free and clear, which she didn’t, but there you go.

If not for that, I’d probably end up mostly supporting her, which wouldn’t be a pretty financial picture. I mean I wish she’d remarried - or even shacked up with - some wonderful guy who had a bit of money himself, but she’s 68 now and has been divorced for nearly 35 years, so it ain’t looking too likely. And her work history has been pretty spotty for most of the past 8 - 10 years, so she’s basically blown through her savings (which weren’t huge, because she never made much anyway).

So yeah, I don’t think of marriage as a moral issue or anything, but I’m sure glad my parents were married to each other.

In my experience, women try harder when you are living together.

My understanding (and it is far from complete) is that if the couple in question had been legally married, the property would have gone to the surviving spouse in the absence of a will, and the children wouldn’t have been able to do what they did to her.

This is ridiculously offensive.

A portion of it would have gone to her, probably not all of it. In my state at least, half goes to the surviving spouse and the other half is divided among the children*. Assuming he already owned the house and never put her on the deed, she would have had a half-interest in the house, if it was a jointly held asset she’d have 3/4 of it. They could probably have forced her to sell and pay them an appropriate percentage of the proceeds, but they couldn’t have just thrown her out.

*This gets messy when both partners in a blended family die intestate, like my grandfather and his second wife. They had both been widowed and had children from the previous marriages, and they had a child together. They had a house that was joint property, so they each owned half of it. When she died intestate, half her property went to Grandpa, the other half was split between her two daughters. So at this point, he owns 3/4 of the house, StepAunt owns 1/8, and Half-Aunt owns 1/8. He remarried, and then died intestate. Half of his 3/4 went to Wife#3, the other half was split evenly between his three children. So…StepAunt had 1/8, Wife #3 had 3/8, Dad had 1/8, Aunt had 1/8, Half-Aunt had 1/4. If Daddy had died before signing over his portion to Grandma, Mom would have owned 1/16, and my brother and I would have each owned 1/32.)

For like the fourth time, you are conflating divorce and separation of joint assets.

People can fight about splitting up assets whether they are married or not. After 10+ years, or whatever, of living with someone it is virtually impossible to maintain single ownership of assets. Your CDs, for example. So their yours, but do you have receipts proving so? What happens when she just takes them when she leaves? It can end up in the court system just as easily as divorce. And unless you are meticulously accounting everything it will be more complicated and difficult than divorce.

So to repeat one more time, divorce is easy. In most states it’s a couple of forms and a few hundred dollar filing fee. Separating joint assets is hard.

I’ve already acknowledged protection of assets as a reasonable, albeit dickish reason. However, it’s not a typical reason I’ve heard, or I suppose assumed. I’m talking more about people late twenties/early thirties, not forty somethings twice divorced. I can’t imagine any of them openly saying the reason they aren’t getting married is because they don’t want the possibility of paying alimony in the future.

I don’t agree with everything you’ve posted, but this is spot on. Even in the few backward states that make you wait through a yearlong separation, the divorce itself is simple. Sure it’s a pain to file paperwork and show up in court, but it can also provide a sense of closure that it’s hard to get when a living-together unmarried couple breaks up.

In my divorce, we split all the joint assets, possessions and debts ourselves before we even started the paperwork. We hired a lawyer because we’re both procrastinators and knew it would be worth the money to have someone else providing a deadline structure. We each signed affidavits for the judge that our stuff and money was split in a satisfactory way and that was that. We hadn’t been married long, but lived together for our entire adult lives and were completely financially entangled, but since we were on the same page regarding who got what the split wasn’t hard. If there had been disagreements, the process would have been difficult whether we were divorcing or just breaking up.

Actually in our case I think the need for paperwork helped, as it made my ne’er do well ex actually take me seriously when I had to set boundaries like a deadline for him to get his stuff out of my apartment. If the courts weren’t involved, I think he would have dragged his feet for years. What worked for me was to separate out what was unambiguously “his” and say that once he removed that stuff, then we could sit down together and figure out the more ambiguous things like books and music purchased jointly. Moreover, step two had to be done by the deadline we’d set with the lawyer for signing the paperwork. This got his butt in gear and gave us both the incentive to work together to resolve things.

As for money and debts, we had charged a few thousand dollars on my credit cards for a move immediately before the separation. I got cash out of the joint checking to cover his half of that, and then we split what was left over. I stayed in our apartment and kept the security deposit in my name, and he kept the car (it was in his name though we’d paid for it together) as he needed it to get to work. Since I stayed in the apartment and he decided to move to a tiny place, I kept most of the furniture and housewares. He kept the nice laptop. We split the books, music and movies with very little strife. Again, all this would have had to be done even if we weren’t married, and it certainly would have dragged on longer.

I’ve seen several peer couples break up after a long cohabitation, and in all but one case the process dragged out painfully for literally years, with multiple bouts of one [ex]partner sleeping on the couch, trying to room together as “friends” and on and on. That never made sense to me at all, but lots of people I know have tried it and it always ended in tears. When it’s a DIVORCE on the other hand, fewer people try that kind of nonsense. Please note, I’m not denigrating couples who try to reconcile after a separation, I’m talking about couples who are broken up, yet maintain these ambiguous ties that give neither party what he or she wants. In my nonscientific experience, it’s more common for unmarrieds than for marrieds.

Get divorced once and then come back. I can tell you there’s no way that you can walk in and get divorced in one day, especially if you own a house, bank account and have kids.

I’ve been through both long term living with someone and divorce. I’ve seen plenty of divorces and long term relationships go. In every case the divorce was a lot worse. Believe what you want but you’re not changing my mind.

Without reading responses, all I can say is that the listed benefits don’t mean squat if you don’t want to marry someone. Doesn’t matter at all what the reason is; if you or your partner is shying away from the paperwork, but are doing fine otherwise, then stick with it.

Let’s try one more time.

You are conflating the process of separating joint assets and divorce. Divorce, indeed, is that easy. In most states, it is just forms and a fee, and you are done. What is difficult is separating joint assets.

So yeah, if you have a bunch of property together and kids that you want to fight over, then it becomes a long drawn out process. But that is no different from non-married couples.

Let me say this one more time then. I’m not conflating the two. When you’re married it usually doesn’t matter for how long, everything is joint, period. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve owned something it belongs to both people.

If I were to live with someone for a hundred years, unless we both put our names on something it is not joint, the other person has no rights to my house, my car or my bank account unless I allow them to.

That’s what you’re missing, in a marriage by default everything is joint so separating assets is part of the divorce.

Since you say it’s so easy, please show me how, in any state, that you can walk into the courthouse, fill out some paperwork and then an hour later be divorced. Everything I’ve read so far says it takes at least a few weeks, no court in the US moves in a day.

Tell me which you’d rather deal with. You buy a house, then get married, get divorced and have to split half of the house value and all other property. Or buy a house, have someone move in with you, have them leave and steal everything in the house. Everything in my house is worth far less then the value of half my house.

Again, I’ve been through it both ways and I’ve seen it happen both ways and in every case it’s been far easier to just break up.

I did. It took me about 45 minutes with a lawyer to walk me through what needed to be done, and hour (maybe two?) to fill out some paperwork, then a court date that started at 8:30 and ended at 10:45. Filing fee was I believe $250, and that could have been waived had I filled out a hardship form. The lawyer was unnecessary but helped with my procrastination. This took place over if I recall a 3-month period - the delay caused first by my ex dragging his feet on his paperwork (had to call his mother to get him to finish it. I miss that woman…) then by summer vacations by judges in my small town. If we’d gotten our act together in the first place we could have done it with no lawyer and with maybe 3 weeks notice.

Well under a day worth of effort. Everything beyond what is listed here would have happened during the breakup had we been simply breaking up without having been married first. No kids, but honestly if you’re breaking up a family unit that includes kids, it should take a certain amount of effort (said as a kid of divorce). And separating a joint asset like a house is going to be a pain whether you were married, dating or just business partners. Obviously this hasn’t been your experience, but it was mine. I do regret the marriage, but it’s not because divorcing him was hard.

Hadn’t thought of it this way, but maybe it would be fair to say I wouldn’t marry anyone in the future if I wasn’t confident I could go through a divorce with him :stuck_out_tongue:

All this said, if you don’t want to get married again, by all means don’t. No skin off my nose, but just as not all weddings need to cost thousands of dollars and obscene amounts of effort, not all divorces are painful ass-reamings for either party.

This isn’t true. Every state has different laws regarding division of property, but even in community property states where the split is 50/50, that doesn’t include all property owned by each person, just the community property. For example, if you get an inheritance, it isn’t automatically part of the community property.

States have different ways of splitting up property.