What is better, single or joint assets in a relationship?
What is better, single or joint assets in a relationship? This may be a question for our times or all times according to Cheshire family solicitors Stonehewer Moss. Research publicised by the Independent today suggests people are found to be happier if single. An article luring attention by using a celebrity once married picture seems a contradictory way to weigh up the pros and cons of being attached or single but What is better, single or joint assets in a relationship? is a matter without a serious answer and celebrities have no easier home lives than idols of the ancient past, the gods of Greece and Rome. What is better, single or joint assets in a relationship? has a word the blogger has included that does contain the essence of the issue at point of break up, who owns which assets? If single you own them but what do you own when your life reaches a crisis? The reality of existence is that we all have crises at some point. Being single means what you accumulate alone will be all you have when the life shock hits you. Both emotionally and materially a decision to choose being single to avoid losses could be a mistake. There is safety in numbers. The Independent article highlights the harm done by relationships to past friendships. Friends post stuff on social media, a companion is enduring to the end of that relationship with the benefit of potential financial security. Being in a relationship can take the form at present of marriage or living together without the ceremony, the former attracting distributive property rights that currently are not given to the latter, who will have to rely on common law concepts such as contract, estoppel and trusts that already read more complicated than your casual arrangement intended. What is better, single or joint assets in a relationship? depends whether there is a marriage as in such cases only the super wealthy can realistically argue assets are non matrimonial and therefore not distributable on separation, with a possible exception.
Romance may lie shrivelled in the heart of the divorce lawyer but the modern world lends itself to a rights based approach to relationships. Acknowledging equality need not involve giving carte blanche to your beloved. Firstly, you may decide to live together and not marry. Fairness suggests a living together agreement in a deed would clarify property rights that are fixed rather than a moveable feast as in divorce, when you discover the court thinks it is fair that what you owned either in full or equally should from now on be owned 70% by your ex. Secondly,if old fashioned common sense recommends such an agreement when living outside marriage, surely a pre nup makes sense for those who marry. Romance is not exclusive to marriage today and those who want to share your life are using rhetoric if they shy away from a living together agreement if unmarried or pre nup if you decide to marry on the basis of being unromantic. The court does not rubber stamp the pre nup in divorce, fairness will prevail but you will be treated as adults. The law is not about emotion, separation often is and happiness exiting the divorce court should not be left in the hands of the gods. What is better, single or joint assets in a relationship? It is the point of crisis that tests the question.
For advice and negotiation of family property rights please call 01606 872200 email email@example.com