# What are the de facto laws in your country?



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Just curious folk, in Australia since 2009 a woman is now entitled to claim half your assets and even split up your property with you after a mere 6 months+ in a de facto relationship. Yup, that's right, unmarried relationships are now just as expensive as marriages.

Now of course with a mere six months you can press your case and sort it out in court, but when it's over a year, forget it - you'll definitely be losing out. I've already lost most of my savings and my house to my STBX, which I'm not really complaining considering she was an active wife and mother over the years. But I risked losing my business.

Now if I'm hit with this again... I'm fked, and potentially so will all my mates at work who depend on me for their jobs. This has made me very wary about any future with a woman. For starters, if I am to get involved now, if I don't wish to lose out, she must match my assets and I hate having to have this as a standard.

Not only that, but if she moves in with me, and after a year, decides to fk off, BOOM. There goes my business that I've spent the last few years investing in, and there goes my financial security that I've relied on since mid-marriage. I'll be back to square one, and may not achieve the same success that I have in my current business.

Am I being selfish thinking of this? Do you think this is a good law? Why should I even get involved in a long term relationship anymore nowadays if this is going to be the way it is? Bah!

Now in the case of prenup, who the hell is going to sign a prenup before even living together? Bah!


----------



## PBear (Nov 16, 2010)

Is it half your assets, or half your assets you've accumulated while in the relationship? And what about a pre-nup (or equivalent, for someone moving in)?

C


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

De facto is now being treated just like a marriage, it's not always 50/50 as disputes take to account other factors such as duration of the relationship/household affairs/contributions/etc etc. Either way you will be going to court if your partner decides to demand money just by living with you!

STBX and I avoided court, hell if there's any woman I can trust to be non-materialistic - it's her. She didn't even care about the money but I gave it to her anyway besides she promised that money is for our daughter (even though right now she's still not working and eating up her savings + mooching off her parents). Now this fking sucks because I wonder how someone else is supposed to surpass that kind of trust (even if she's useless when it comes to work!)

Lets say with my current date for example, moves in with me next year after divorce, after let's say, 2 years, I'll have to go through all this financial bogus again and I'm not so sure if by 2 years I can pay her off like I did my STBX (another reason why I practically threw money/our house at her was because I didn't want to risk my business if she decides to be a b-tch)

There are still prenup or 'defacto agreements' which it's called which seems like the only option to divorce-proof (and now relationship-proof) my business! I'll have to get any potential partner to sign it before she lives with me over 6 months! Bah!


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

RandomDude said:


> Am I being selfish thinking of this?


Are you being selfish to want to keep the fruits of your labor, rather than handing them over at the point of a gun to some woman you liked well enough to bang for several months, but not enough to marry? I don't think so.



> Do you think this is a good law?


Of course not.



> Why should I even get involved in a long term relationship anymore nowadays if this is going to be the way it is? Bah!


I think you have two choices to try to protect your assets. The surest way to do it is to have nothing more than casual and/or short-term relationships for the rest of your life. At 5.5 months, inform your girlfriend that Australian law dictates that you must break up now. If she has a problem with that, she should take it up with her MP.

The more risky, but perhaps more rewarding option is to try to screen the hell out of any prospective serious girlfriends. It might be possible to find one who would stay committed to you and/or refuse to use the government to fleece you of your assets.



> Now in the case of prenup, who the hell is going to sign a prenup before even living together? Bah!


Anyone with a sense of fairness. If a woman refuses to sign a prenup, dump her.

Good luck.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Hell, thanks... I needed that reassurance.

I guess can get away with a relationship that doesn't involve her moving in, but will women accept that? I don't think so =/



> At 5.5 months, inform your girlfriend that Australian law dictates that you must break up now.


:rofl: Heh that would be priceless



> Anyone with a sense of fairness. If a woman refuses to sign a prenup, dump her.
> 
> Good luck.


Yeah, looks like it's the way to go. Hell so much for avoiding marriage again! The same sh-t nowadays just by living with a woman, don't need no paper to rob me!

Guess I'll have to keep my heart hardened for much... much longer.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> Just curious folk, *in Australia since 2009 a woman is now entitled to claim half your assets and even split up your property with you after a mere 6 months+ in a de facto relationship. Yup, that's right, unmarried relationships are now just as expensive as marriages.*


The same applies in our country , since 2010.
The law came out of situations where most men, especially those in the higher income brackets had wives and mistresses. Wife in one house and mistress in another house or apartment or condo , being maintained by the man.

Before 2010 , legally only the wife was entitled.
But there were women who were mistresses, or 
" outside women " as the term often used , who often cohabited with these men , sometimes for years , and even had kids , but if the man died or they split, she got nothing, and often his kids with her ,suffered.
The law sought to " fix " that situation.

So basically if the mistress never " cheated " ie; if she was seeing that man alone , and even had a child for him, after one year , she is entitled to the same amount as his legal wife if they should split or if he died.

Its a soft form of " legal polygamy."

The local slang for it is " _[email protected] tax_ ", meaning you have to pay if you want to have extramarital sex.

BTW, our country's Prime Minister is a woman, and women outnumber men.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Interesting! You get mistresses in your country? What do the women say to that? lol

In Australia the law seems to have come from people wanting to live together but without being officially married. Which I find is quite stupid, because now we all have the downsides of marriage without marriage itself! :slap:


----------



## moco82 (Jul 16, 2012)

It's probably a ploy to boost the housing market and the consumer market for home goods. People would be too afraid to move in together and thus would have to maintain separate households. Janet Yellen should take notice.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> But there were women who were mistresses, or
> " outside women " as the term often used , who often cohabited with these men , sometimes for years , and even had kids , but if the man died or they split, she got nothing, and often his kids with her ,suffered.
> The law sought to " fix " that situation.


Seems to me that the best fix for such a situation would be for the "outside woman" to avoid such an arrangement in the first place. 

Oh wait, I forgot that personal responsibility is no longer in fashion. Carry on.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> There are still prenup or 'defacto agreements' which it's called which seems like the only option to divorce-proof (and now relationship-proof) my business! I'll have to get any potential partner to sign it before she lives with me over 6 months! Bah!


Gotta protect yourself, like it or not. In time, there may be a backlash by women who find that men have now become so "commitment phobic" that they can't get a relationship with a man to last longer than a bag of oranges.

What political force in your country pushed for this?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> Interesting! You get mistresses in your country? What do the women say to that? lol
> 
> In Australia the law seems to have come from people wanting to live together but without being officially married. Which I find is quite stupid, because now we all have the downsides of marriage without marriage itself! :slap:


In our country, the law was meant to address that cohabiting problem too. So it's like killing two birds with one stone.


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

Look for women who have more assets than you...


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Become a gold digger myself? No way lol
Though hell, it's almost like I'm being pushed towards materialism for the sake of protecting myself.

As for the political force behind it, our government has always been meh... apparently it started in Western Australia and the law back in 2001 was 2 years, now it's 6 months WTF?! :slap:

This in addition to already having suffered financial loss due to my impending divorce, it has definitely made me commitment-phobic!!!



> In our country, the law was meant to address that cohabiting problem too. So it's like killing two birds with one stone.


So the law in your country to also scare off people from having mistresses... has been adopted by our government to scare off people from moving in together :slap:

lol


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

I believe in Canada, 'Common Law' is treated virtually the same as marriage.

But the splitting of Assets only refers to those Assets that were acquired since the relationship began. Doesn't matter if you were married or 'shacking up'. I think it is a fair law.

Even though this is what is supposed to happen, I think a 'prenup' is still a good idea if the value of Assets is substantially different when starting a relationship. 

Not sure what a 'prenup' is called if there is never a plan for marriage.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Here they don't even care about that especially after two years which is when you're pretty much powerless to protect your assets - that duration favors the full split. We call our pre-nups "binding financial agreements" here in AUS, same with both marriages and relationships now, bah!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

zookeeper said:


> Gotta protect yourself, like it or not. In time, there may be a backlash by women who find that men have now become so "commitment phobic" that they can't get a relationship with a man to last longer than a bag of oranges.


Interesting. I could see women as becoming afraid to get into a relationship as well. 

After all, what woman would want to meet a man, start having sex with him, possibly move in with him, only to be DUMPED at the 5.5 month point?



Vega


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I just read a post about a woman who was encouraged to seek a prenup/BFA on the 6 month break with her bf to protect herself. Looks like it's the way to go nowadays: Sign it or fk off!


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Vega said:


> Interesting. I could see women as becoming afraid to get into a relationship as well.
> 
> After all, what woman would want to meet a man, start having sex with him, possibly move in with him, only to be DUMPED at the 5.5 month point?
> 
> ...


Seems to me like it would be a bad idea to move in with someone you have been dating for less than six months, particularly if it is being done out of an expectation of financial support. Also, I find it puzzling that a woman would find something negative about having sex with a man who might break up with her. Women enjoy sex too. Hopefully she is not engaging in sex with him just to gain a commitment, but this scenario makes it sound like she is. Using sex as a point of leverage is not a good thing, at least in my book.

Laws like these are technically gender neutral, but in the real world it doesn't work that way. No doubt most people would see this as a law to protect women who are more likely to earn less than a man.

I don't see how this is in any way empowering for a woman. It simp,y perpetuates the idea that women are weak and need a man to support themselves. Governments need people to be weak and dependent. Why encourage them to not only make better decisions in life, but also take responsibility for their mistakes and learn from the consequences? That would only make them independent and what government wants that?

I have a daughter and want her to feel every bit the equal to a man. She won't be the same as a man, but she is just as capable of making her way in this world. It would be sickening to me if she began dating a man and after 6 months expected half of his assets. My expectation of her is that she will not surrender her identity to a man. She will maintain her ability to support herself and therefore would have no need to have a share in his assets. It is different for a woman who leaves the workforce for 20 years to raise kids and care for her family. The subject of this thread is preposterous.

Yes, there are many strong, self-confident women who will experience negative consequences from such legislation. They suffer the consequences of this victim mentality the same as men do. It's very sad and I fear that my generation is not leaving a very good world for my daughter's. As long as people are encouraged to think that others are responsible for their prosperity, the relationships between men and women will continue to suffer.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

We're doomed!
Bah! Time for a revolution I say


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> We're doomed!
> Bah! Time for a revolution I say


I suggest civil disobedience. Go on a relationship hunger strike. When enough women can't get a relationship to last beyond a few months, you'll start to see a return to sanity.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Heh I don't think the government really cares about the integrity of relationships in this country mate. Another bad thing is that alot of young men - such as myself back in the day, simply underestimates the potential financial loss that comes with the breakdown of a marriage - and now any relationship past 6 months.

I guess the law could work for couples who share similar contributions - if both pull in the same amount for example so the split won't be so uneven - in theory anyway, as it rarely works this way with finances always fluctuating.


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> Become a gold digger myself? No way lol


Actually that wasn't my point. My point was if she has more assets than you she wouldn't be able to go after yours. It doesn't mean you would have to go after hers. You can always take the high road...just as many women do...although apparently not all.


----------



## grainofsalt (Oct 6, 2013)

I'll give you a rundown of Canadian laws regarding "common law" relationships.

Actually, it is not so much Canadian laws, since it is up to each Province individually to set the "rules." So, depending on the Province, living together for two or three years makes the relationship "common law." Quebec is an exception... There is really no such thing as "common law" in Quebec, no matter how long people have lived together.

Now, let's examine the difference between common law and marriage here. There essentially is no difference, except the fact that a common law partner cannot take 50% of the marital home (unless the partner contributed 50%, of course). With marriage, they are of course entitled to 50%, whether they contributed or not. So, this is an important difference if one partner has significantly more invested into a home than the other. "Common law" here is essentially the same as a pre-nup in that regard. And this is important, depending on which Province you live in. And I'll explain why...

Not all Provinces honour pre-nups when it comes to the marital home. I believe there are three that do not. You can get a pre-nup before marriage, but it means nothing. In these three Provinces, he or she will still walk away with 50% of the marital home, regardless of who contributed what.

So, if one lives in one of these Provinces, and marital home asset protection is important, then it is crucial to stay "common law" and not get married, as that would be the only protection.

A little complicated, I know!


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

MaritimeGuy said:


> Actually that wasn't my point. My point was if she has more assets than you she wouldn't be able to go after yours. It doesn't mean you would have to go after hers. You can always take the high road...just as many women do...although apparently not all.


Well, if I include "match my assets" with my already impossible standards for a partner I'm pretty much screwed. Most women don't own their own businesses let alone have one that survived the initial 2 year period in Sydney and continue to generate profits. Sure they are out there, but it's not a large pool to choose from.



> Not all Provinces honour pre-nups when it comes to the marital home. I believe there are three that do not. You can get a pre-nup before marriage, but it means nothing. In these three Provinces, he or she will still walk away with 50% of the marital home, regardless of who contributed what.


!!!! Heck I wonder if men avoid getting married in those states/provinces if they don't honor prenups


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

In the USA we have 50 states, so there are 50 different laws as each state has it's own laws.

But they tend to fall into categories for divorce: community property and equitable distribution.

There are 15 states and the District of Columbia recognize some form of common law marriage either by statute or court ruling. STATES THAT RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE

Just living together is some different. I don't think that any state explicitly gives rights when two people just live together. But there are court cases in some states that have established, via case law, what is colloquially called palimony and rights.

Palimony - Spousal Support for Unmarried Separating Couples | divorcenet.com


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Sounds like the U.S. in general is a better place for couples to live then, in AUS first no-fault divorces and now "palimony" nation-wide. It's gold-digger heaven!


----------



## grainofsalt (Oct 6, 2013)

RandomDude said:


> !!!! Heck I wonder if men avoid getting married in those states/provinces if they don't honor prenups


Unfortunately most people find out too late! Ontario is one Province that does not honour pre-nups on the marital home.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Sounds like the case in Australia as well, most young folk men or women fall in love, don't think anything is going to happen then breakup/divorce and suffer the consequences. Personally I never understood the consequences of marriage until seperation/divorce but at least STBX didn't insist on ruining my life.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> Sounds like the U.S. in general is a better place for couples to live then, in AUS first no-fault divorces and now "palimony" nation-wide. It's gold-digger heaven!


I think that all 50 of our states have no fault divorce. Though it seems that some are have a fault choice for things like adultery. But it's hard and extremely expensive to prove adultery. 

I'm not a fan of common law marriage or palimony. Either get married or don't. But do not expect the benefits of marriage without being married.

I guess in your case, just do not even live with anyone.


----------



## grainofsalt (Oct 6, 2013)

I got lucky when my stbxw split and had me eventually served with divorce docs. No children, and the split was as "civil" as could be expected. Certainly not as bad as some of the horror stories I read about.

As this was my first marriage, I didn't even have a clue what the divorce rate was before she left! Since she left, I have spent hours browsing over stats, laws, facts and figures!

Funny how things that we could never envision happening in a million years, can just happen almost overnight!


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

EleGirl said:


> I think that all 50 of our states have no fault divorce. Though it seems that some are have a fault choice for things like adultery. But it's hard and extremely expensive to prove adultery.
> 
> I'm not a fan of common law marriage or palimony. Either get married or don't. But do not expect the benefits of marriage without being married.
> 
> I guess in your case, just do not even live with anyone.


Heh I doubt most women would want to stick with a man for too long who won't let them live with him! But I guess short-term relationships are in fashion



grainofsalt said:


> I got lucky when my stbxw split and had me eventually served with divorce docs. No children, and the split was as "civil" as could be expected. Certainly not as bad as some of the horror stories I read about.
> 
> As this was my first marriage, I didn't even have a clue what the divorce rate was before she left! Since she left, I have spent hours browsing over stats, laws, facts and figures!
> 
> Funny how things that we could never envision happening in a million years, can just happen almost overnight!


A civil split is a good thing mate, hell I don't think I can handle a nutcase split.


----------



## grainofsalt (Oct 6, 2013)

RandomDude, there must be some way to at least protect your business and its assets.

I don't own a business, but I thought a business can/does run as its own separate entity completely separate from your own personal financial assets...


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I did protect it by sacrificing everything else; house/cash so I effectively bribed STBX in case she decides to go nutcase on D day. As for businesses, if you hold any share in your business then it can still be divided by divorce and I own the majority of shares, and not all businesses are seperate legal entities; such as sole traders.

My problem for future relationships is that I no longer have any 'bribes' in terms of other assets to cover the costs of relationship breakdown.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> Heh *I doubt most women would want to stick with a man for too long who won't let them live with him! *But I guess short-term relationships are in fashion
> 
> 
> 
> A civil split is a good thing mate, hell I don't think I can handle a nutcase split.


If she owned her own place, she would not be so keen. The guy I dated about 10 years ago was very keen to move in with me and "pay me something towards the rent." Here in the UK, I understand that if anyone puts money directly into your mortgage account, they own a piece of your place.

Cohabitating partners get screwed because they think that the money that they hand the owner of the dweller aka as their partner and maybe even parent of their child, is going towards the property and therefore ownership when it's just going to pay for groceries and the utilities.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

So looks like once again I'm encouraged to stick within my 'league' financially to protect myself. Hell this is just not me


----------



## John Lee (Mar 16, 2013)

The U.S. has fifty different sets of laws on marriage, so you'd have to look it up by state.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

You are being way over dramatic on this one. Yes the defacto laws can be a bit of a concern but any sensible person simply gets a binding financial agreement, especially those that have been married/divorced.

The laws are very fair IMO and same as being married then going through a divorce, a person does not automatically get an asset split of 50/50,there is a formula that is based on longevity of the relationship, kids, input into the relationship/marriage.

And TBH moving in with someone after such a short time is not a prudent thing to do anyway especially as you have kids already.

For the record I know more women that are hesitant to co habitate than men. You are living in last century if you think that only men have assets to protect. Being a very financially secure woman myself there is no way I would co habitate without a legal agreement signed. It is a simple thing to do and very common.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I'm just paranoid due to my losses already in my impending divorce


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Well just forget about living with someone for some time, I mean come on you aren't even divorced yet. And why do you keep going on about men being the only ones with assets? You live in a country that is full of successful men *and *women, find a financial equal.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

> Why do you keep going on about men being the only ones with assets?


Ha! Its probably because I've been stuck as sole provider for so long! And besides I'm still at the age where most women around my age group are only either just beginning to establish their careers or are still studying.



> You live in a country that is full of successful men and women, find a financial equal.


Maybe in 10 years, for now I have to work with what I have, and I'm picky as it is already, having financial qualities as a standard will just make it even more impossible =/


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Holland said:


> You are being way over dramatic on this one. Yes the defacto laws can be a bit of a concern but any sensible person simply gets a binding financial agreement, especially those that have been married/divorced. ... The laws are very fair IMO ... And TBH moving in with someone after such a short time is not a prudent thing to do anyway especially as you have kids already. ... Being a very financially secure woman myself there is no way I would co habitate without a legal agreement signed. It is a simple thing to do and very common.


I think your statements are incongruent. You think the laws are fair, but you advise everyone to have a financial agreement so they can circumvent the law.

Not only are the laws unfair to people with unequal assets, they are unfair to the poor. It's really not much use to a poor, or lower-middle class person, to advise him to hire a lawyer to draft a legal agreement to circumvent the foolish laws pertaining to cohabiting. That's like advising a person to hire a CPA to do his taxes, then he won't have to worry about what stupid new tax laws are passed each year.

I very much doubt that most people who are in unmarried relationships for a few months are expecting a split of their assets if and when they break up. However, politicians don't have much else to do, so we now have laws to fix a problem that didn't exist. Why not go back to the old system, where unmarried people didn't expect, and weren't entitled, to split assets when they ended the relationship?


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

PHTlump said:


> I think your statements are incongruent. You think the laws are fair, but you advise everyone to have a financial agreement so they can circumvent the law.
> 
> Not only are the laws unfair to people with unequal assets, they are unfair to the poor. It's really not much use to a poor, or lower-middle class person, to advise him to hire a lawyer to draft a legal agreement to circumvent the foolish laws pertaining to cohabiting. That's like advising a person to hire a CPA to do his taxes, then he won't have to worry about what stupid new tax laws are passed each year.
> 
> I very much doubt that most people who are in unmarried relationships for a few months are expecting a split of their assets if and when they break up. However, politicians don't have much else to do, so we now have laws to fix a problem that didn't exist. Why not go back to the old system, where unmarried people didn't expect, and weren't entitled, to split assets when they ended the relationship?


I would also like to add that here in the States, the laws mean close to squat in family and divorce court. The judges trample on these laws under the guise of 'legal discretion'. It's all pretense.


----------

