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

[wonky]

For example, if you get an inheritance, it isn’t automatically part of the community property in California.

I forgot to say what state I was talking about above.

[dukette71]

@treis

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.

It’s not that you are wrong about marriage, it is just not for everyone. You can dismiss me as someone who comes from a very broken home and has an uncommon point of view, I will agree with you. Unfortunately, many people feel this way. The OP wanted to know why some people don’t get married, not “convince me that marriage is a bad idea”, which is not the case for most people.

to split hairs:
I don’t see it as dickish not to want to pay alimony if you break up with someone. Especially if the breakup was brought on my bad behavior. Have you ever been completely screwed in a relationship? Imagine losing half of your income for the privilege of getting someone out of your life.

[suranyi]

@Edward_The_Head

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.

The OP’s question is about a couple where they HAVE made everything joint, but not gotten married.

[bump]

@Leaffan

Wouldn’t a will have accomplished the same thing?

Not necessarily. Wills can be challenged, and depending on the state, the family can be a much bigger player in the distribution of assets than the recipients in the will, but once you’re married, your spouse trumps all that business by default, I believe, and is really hard to challenge their inheritance of joint property.

[bump]

@jsgoddess

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.

To further that, at least around here, community property starts the moment you get married.

For example, my binoculars are mine, and mine alone, since I bought them prior to marrying my wife.

My Xbox is community property since I bought it after we were married.

My pickup truck is somewhere in between; I bought it before getting married, but finished out the note paying out of the joint account. I imagine there’s a rule on the books on how to divide that, but it’s probably not 50/50.

[Northern_Piper]

@elbows

I live in Canada where I have all the protections and rights of marriage, just by cohabitating for a given period.

Don’t be too sure of that. It depends on the law of the province where you live, which can vary tremendously.

See this article: Don’t Wait Till Death Do You Part.

Wills lawyer Les Kotzer says common-law couples are often shocked to learn that if their partner dies, the survivor is not an automatic beneficiary. “They think if you live together for three years, they’re considered a spouse, but that’s not the case for inheritance purposes,” he says. As pointed out in an earlier column, marriage revokes a will, but living common-law does not.
…
Laws vary by province, depending if the issue is division of property, spousal support or rights upon death. In the absence of a will in Ontario, a common-law spouse has no right to the deceased’s estate or property, although there may be grounds to seek legal redress.

Not meant as legal advice - if you want advice about your personal situation, consult a lawyer in your province or territory, familiar with the law in this area.

[MissesA]

Everyone here says when you get married it jinxes your relationship or that its just a piece of paper. Or why get married? The weddings cheaper than the divorce.

[Nava]

@Edward_The_Head

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.

Like so many things, that varies by location. In Spain the default is joint ownership of anything obtained post-marriage (it doesn’t apply to anything previously owned; whether post-marriage inheritances are common or not varies by the nature of the inheritance), but you also have the separate-ownership option.

What’s become standard here for the last 20 years or so is to live together until you decide you want to have children; sometimes one person is allergic enough to marriage that they prefer to go for the complicated version of paternity paperwork than to get married. There are also cases (one of the main reasons behind registries of “unmarried couples”; the other one was same-sex couples) where one of them is still married to someone else by the time the baby comes around.

Those who know something about the history of marriage as a legal and religious institutions, civil registries etc. refer to cohabitating couples as “old-fashioned marriages”.

Re. wills, I don’t know how it works Elsewhere, but in the three Spanish legal systems a widow(er) pays much less or no inheritance tax; an unrecorded partner pays the maximum amount, the amount paid by someone unrelated to the deceased.

[rat_avatar]

@treis

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.

Not exactly the same, when you are married you are also responsible for the other persons debts.

In my state the divorce process divides those on a ability to pay method, as my friend found out when his “professional wife” decided to quit her job to become a Doula while keeping the spending spree.

He was saddled with almost all of it in the divorce.

If you are not married that does not apply unless you agree to buy it with them.

I was never against marriage before, but after having a couple LTRs end do to no fault of my own.

(yes I had been at fault in other relationships)

I don’t see why I should enter a contract where another party could break the contract and I would still be on the losing end.

And no, this state does not factor in “fault” only ability to pay.

In this state, your spouse could go buy a Ferrari on credit, quit their job to be a life guard and run off with some 18yo. And if you were the primary money maker they would keep the car and you would keep the payment.

Along with all the CC debt that you didn’t have power over.

I have no fear of commitment, I do have issues with contracts that provide so little while having such huge negatives.

That being said, If I had kids, or were at a age where my partner could not recover by finding another partner or on her own or needed SS I would get married.

[CairoCarol]

I apologize for posting without having read the entire thread, but I think I can submit one technical benefit of marriage that has not yet been mentioned: in some instances, the right to a dependent visa when residing in a foreign country.

For example: as a foreigner, I’m not allowed to just say “hey, I think I’ll live in Indonesia” and move there without proper visas. A company can sponsor me and give me a work visa that allows me to stay in country; my spouse and children are then automatically entitled to visas too, as my dependents. An SO to whom I was not married would not be eligible to live in Indonesia simply on the basis that they were my partner - they would have to jump through a lot of bureaucratically intensive and potentially expensive hoops in order to obtain and renew short-term visas on their own.

This sort of mechanism may vary from country to country, but it has been true for three of the four developing nations I have lived in. (Possible the 4th as well, I just never had occasion to know the rules.)

Of course, if you never ever have plans to live abroad, this benefit won’t be relevant. But I’ve known a number of couples who suddenly got married specifically because one of them got a job overseas. It’s as good a reason as any, I guess - clearly, the relationship is pretty committed if one person is willing to move across the globe for the other.