Starting Today New BC Law Turns Thousands of Live-in Lovers Into Married Couples

[Wetcoaster]

I seriously doubt this will lower the number of lawsuits.

And in situations where people live for decades together in an obvious partnership including having children there's clearly already laws in place to get restitution.

All this does is lower the bar on how deep you have to go before one party can leverage power over the other with the threat of lawsuits.

[Lockout Casualty]

Sometimes they were able to get restitution but not always. It was decided on a case by case basis. The BC government decided that was not equitable and I agree.

Since it was always an issue whether a common law spouse was entitled to anything and had to go to the courts to enforce any claim, it is hard to see how this will not reduce litigation. Two years and a marriage-like relationship and that fixes the property division regime.

[Wetcoaster]

Why is this better than the alternative of having no property division outside of marriage, regardless of the length of the conjugal relationship? Where's the personal responsibility of not putting one's self into a marriage-like situation and developing dependency? Talk about government regulating adult relationships.

[Lockout Casualty]

The legislature has made a choice and set the cut-off for a "common law marriage" at two years. In some other provinces it is two years and in a couple it is three years.

The government regulates all sorts of relationships.

[Wetcoaster]

You begged the question why it's preferable to regulate adult relationships that are not under contract, marriage or otherwise.

It was never in dispute that government regulates all sorts of relationships.

[thad]

Time to hit the gym and find me a sugar momma haha

Think twice before you cheat these days eh?

Law students are probably thrilled with this.. I have no clue about their business but wouldn't this create a butt load of work for the ones on the lower end of the lawyer depth chart?

[Wetcoaster]

Time to hit the gym and find me a sugar momma haha

Think twice before you cheat these days eh?

Law students are probably thrilled with this.. I have no clue about their business but wouldn't this create a butt load of work for the ones on the lower end of the lawyer depth chart?

[ronthecivil]

Time to hit the gym and find me a sugar momma haha

Think twice before you cheat these days eh?

Law students are probably thrilled with this.. I have no clue about their business but wouldn't this create a butt load of work for the ones on the lower end of the lawyer depth chart?

[thad]

It's no fault divorce. Cheat to your black hearts content.

What matters is how your economics changes during the relationship. So if your sugar momma is cool with you staying home and looking after the dogs and cooking her dinner like a good boy toy then by all means quit your job and do so.

While your at it you can go after as many other chicks as you want.

If you get caught and she doesn't like it if it's been two years of her supporting you not only will you not be at fault but you would have grounds for support.

-------------------------------------

Or in more practical terms....

If you happen to be in a relationship such as my own where during the relationship one person decides they have a bit more risk tolerance than the other and happens to make a big profit on an investment during that time then it's 50/50. Of course, had said investment been leveraged and you happen to get a margin call and giant pile of debt? Well, then it's 50/50!

Due to simple practical reasons not common law atm but given the incredibly risk adverse nature of the gf I will have to point out this implication of the law! Being reigned into my risky behaviors (which will never stop) whether she wants to be or not is bound to go over well!

[Mainly Mattias]

Some say the art of a good lawyer is being able to distill the law into a short summary for those who don't want to read pages of legalese and case law.

[Jai604]

since I'll forever be alone this doesn't effect me .......

[DonLever]

You begged the question why it's preferable to regulate adult relationships that are not under contract, marriage or otherwise.

It was never in dispute that government regulates all sorts of relationships.

[Wetcoaster]

Well, that is why it is called common-law relationships. It really has nothing to do with government regulation. The government is just codifying what is before the courts anyway. Through various court decisons call precedents. Ask Wetcoaster , he is a lawyer. This new law just takes away some of the uncertainty.

[literaphile]

Well, that is why it is called common-law relationships. It really has nothing to do with government regulation. The government is just codifying what is before the courts anyway. Through various court decisons call precedents. Ask Wetcoaster , he is a lawyer. This new law just takes away some of the uncertainty.

[Wetcoaster]

Now the hysteria has dissipated and it is clear that couples living common law are not married, here is a more balanced assessment of what the new legislation does. It is all about equality and rights.

Common-law partners in B.C. now have more rights than they used to

She lived with him for eight years, raised his children, cooked and cleaned.

“She did what good wives do,” said Victoria family law expert Trudi Brown. “But at the end of the day, she wasn’t a wife. She didn’t have a job anymore and everything was in his name. She didn’t know she wasn’t protected.”

When the couple split up, the woman, who was in her mid-40s, ended up with almost nothing. Her knowledge of her rights was typical of 90 per cent of the common-law couples Brown used to see in her family law practice.

“They were horrified to find out that they didn’t actually get the same [treatment] as married people,” Brown said. “I’ve been trying for years to get people to make agreements before they start living together. But lust and love get in the way. Nobody thinks this will happen to them.”

B.C.’s Family Law Act, which came into effect March 18, changed all that.

The new legislation gives couples who have lived together in a marriage-like relationship for two years or more the same rights and obligations as married couples.

It’s designed to address unfairness in dividing property when common-law relationships end

, said Brown, editor of The British Columbia Family Law Practice.

Justice Minister and Attorney General Shirley Bond said the act replaces legislation from the 1970s and addresses the needs of modern B.C. families as well as shifts in societal norms.

“It’s about providing fair rules for couples who split up and ensuring that those rules are crystal-clear at the onset of the relationship,”

Bond wrote in a letter to the Times Colonist.

Under the new act, common-law couples keep the property they bring into the relationship. Gifts, inheritances, settlements and awards of damages are excluded and not divided upon separation. Only property and debt that a couple accrues during the relationship is divided.

“If you bring in $100,000, and he brings in $500,000, and at the end you have $1 million, he gets his $500,000 and you get your $100,000 and you split the increase,” Brown said. “Most people thinks that’s fair.”

The new act means common-law partners have some rights that they didn’t have before, she said. “They haven’t lost anything and they haven’t become married — because that’s a different thing. That’s a choice. It does say if the couple breaks up and can’t resolve what they need to do when they break up, then some things come into play that will help.”

Media coverage of the act has focused on young couples, content to live together, who resent being placed in the same legal situation as married couples.

But common-law couples can opt out of the property division rules if they make their own agreement.

“What they have to do is write it out and both partners have to sign it in front of an independent person,” Brown said.

For the agreement to be valid, both partners have to provide full disclosure of their assets and liabilities.

Brown says the questions to ask are: What do both of you expect? Who’s paying for what? Is there an intention to have children? If so, who is taking time off for them? If you separate after you have children, what’s going to happen to the person who lost out because of their job?

Because couples may not have an answer for all these questions, there should be a provision to look at the agreement every few years or if they have children, Brown said. “Things change pretty dramatically, so you want to be able to say to the court — if it ever asks — ‘We looked at it and we were happy with it and we don’t want to change it.’ ”

Generally, people will see a lawyer for prenuptial agreements for two reasons: They’ve been divorced before, or their parents make them because they will receive a big inheritance. And it’s always a good idea to consult a lawyer. It’s not expensive and could prevent big legal bills, Brown said.

She predicts the courts will still have some big issues to deal with. For example, if someone brought a $500,000 house into the relationship years ago, and the house isn’t worth that today, how will the court deal with that?

“There are going to be some interesting issues we are going to have to worry about.”

http://www.timescolonist.com/Common+partners+have+more+rights+than+they+used/8174020/story.html#ixzz2P2bxTQd0