Imagine living with a man or woman who you are not married to. Despite not being married, you contribute (in cash, comforts, emotions, time, personal sacrifices, etc) to the home, to property, to entertainment (including sex). Then you break up. If you were married, somebody would be entitled to alimony. Shouldn’t you be awarded a financial payment for your investment in the relationship, especially if your partner has become successful in life because you were there to support? You only get this money if there was a contract - written or oral.
Reason why people might as well marry. I look at people who live together, sometimes for decades, with pity. Because to all intents and purposes you are married, but without the protection and benefits.
ReplyDeleteMarried or otherwise - why should one's association with another be a meal ticket?
ReplyDeleteDo we not have any law as yet in Ghana protecting cohabiting couples? Well it is not surprising given the western world has only just started proposing/looking at changes to the law regarding the above to include cohiabiting couples. But still you are right, they might as well marry. However, people have their reasons for not engaging in this type of commitment: if you are filthy rich and have already had children in a previous marriage and have had a string of failed relationships, it puts you off. You then want to have a peaceful death which includes leaving your property to your children and perhaps something to the divorced spouse too, just to prevent other family members from engaging in further shenanigans after your death.
ReplyDeleteAlso there are a a number of single people who are very successful in life and fear that once they let a partner into their world, things could take a turn for the worst, hence they prefer to cohabit (eat their cake and have it) and decide to leave nothing to the cohabiting partner when they meet their untimely death. They meet their untimely death because, oftentimes such wealthy individuals wrongly hold the belief that their partner's death will precede their own, sad aye?
But yes again, well said they might as well marry however, if they do not do so due to the above reasons i have listed then there is still no harm.
The factors above are factors the law commission or the law making bodies should be looking into in order to consider whether cohabiting partners(i.e the vulnerable partner) needs some form of protection, should the relationship go pear-shaped.
this is a good question. I am currently reading a book titled Jude the Obscure (1895) that treats these issues, in the form of a novel. There were two individuals who loved each other but do not want to have their love tainted by contract. They were despised and alienated. They had to pretend as if they were married. A character made similar statement as you have made, the lady in that relationship. She didn't want to use the contract form of a marriage as a way of obtaining property. It is a good treatise on marriage.
ReplyDeleteI believe if it could be proven that the other partner has a hand in the others rise in status, pecuniary; then such a claim could be laid.
@nana fredua, how do you prove this? Anything pecuniary may require some sort of contract as evidence that there was some form of joint venture between between the couple and perhaps also that they both agreed to share in the losses and profits of the enterprise. where there is no formal document, then perhaps as NY asiedu stated, one could look to oral evidence. But it isn't as clear cut as you think. It could take months, or years to determine who is entitled to what and this may even never happen or could be further prolonged .
ReplyDeleteThis is an everlasting question indeed. Fafaq mentioned many of the same points I would have. It is obviously necessary to change laws in order to give live-in partners similar rights as spouses, but putting all this in place will always be controversial. This reminds me of the huge dispute between Stieg Larsson's partner and his family - she lived with him for 32 years yet has never been entitled to any of the money generated from his book sales nor any vote over the management of his estate even though they wrote together for years. You can read about it here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/stieg-larsson-partner-sweden-inheritance
ReplyDeleteI think some societies recognize common law partners, people who have lived together over many years and possibly also have children. Marriage has its uses...
ReplyDeleteNY, I believe there is the Property Rights of Spouses Bill lying before parliament as we speak. In there, if two people co-habit for more than 5 years each is entitled to some property settlement and financial provision when the relationship goes sour. So yes, there is some protection.
ReplyDelete@ All:
ReplyDeleteOn this one, I just wanted diverse views, so no particular comments will be coming from me.
@ Kwegyirba:
ReplyDeleteHmm, I see. Interesting. That's something Fafaq wanted to hear, no?
@NY Asiedu.Yes, lol.
ReplyDeleteNope no one should be entitled to anything which could be a good thing. Risk free and no ties in the event of a break up. Common sense would come into play regarding possession but here is a case of cohabitors beware and co-habit at your own risk! :)
ReplyDelete