BC's new law erases line between marriage and common-law BC's new law erases line between marriage and common-law Quote:
|
I was wondering why this article focused so much on the gay community. Then I clicked the source link and found out. :nyan: I'm not quite sure why this is necessary, though. |
The problem I can see with this new law is that it infringes on the rights of people involved in a relationship. "We the Government" deem that you both share everything in life after 2 years of living together. I can see this is going to be a big can of worms . Holding people liable for the financial responsibilities as individuals is common sense but two people sharing the load without verbally saying that they would is a bit ludicrous. The Government needs to focus more on translink, schools and healthcare, not this non sense. |
damnit...I don't even get a fucking ring out of this now... |
Quote:
I have plenty of friends that are simply staying as common-in-law, often for years, until they get things sorted out or they determine that they're completely compatible with living together before making the plunge into marriage. This new law, I think, will just create bigger headaches down the road for unmarried couples that decide to break up. |
I think that in the end the new law is more good than bad. It protects children and people in common-law relationships. Just looking at the Kerr v Baranow example, they were living together for 25 years and it had to go all the way to the SCC for Kerr to get an interest in the house. She would have been left with nothing otherwise just because they were not "officially" married - how is that acceptable? If you want to keep things separate, just make that clear and sign a contract. |
if people have no plans on getting married, wouldn't people just keep a separate address that they "live at alone" to protect their assets and just stay at that place a couple of times a week and use it as their mailing address? |
Quote:
I foresee afew issues, being that people will now have to bring up "money" before they either move in together, or let their new-found spouse move in. (Which will complicate the relationship) and I can see TONS of people just lunging at the situation now of living with someone for 2 years, then jumping out of the relationship and saying "Hey, I want HALF YOUR SHIT." I'd also like to mention something in regard to "Kerr v Baranow." Without reviewing the entire case, by the sounds of the article, Kerr would buy groceries with her pension and not put any towards the mortgage of the house. While Baranow would work extra shifts and put all his money towards the house, and none to the groceries. Now to me it sounds like Kerr should get the leftover groceries, and Baranow should get the house. Because he was paying for it ALL BY HIMSELF. |
If I agree to live with you and share some pots and pans, utility bill and rent, that's pretty cool. I might even help raise your kids. Hell, we're tight, I might even lend you my car. But did I AGREE to share what I earn and what I will earn? Nope. If I wanted that, I'd have signed an agreement. I'm a strong believer in separation of Church and State. If you want to get married, do it in your religious institution. If you want to share finances, sign and agreement and file it with your State/Province. I don't even see how there should be a grey middle ground like common-law. |
It makes you sick when living in Washington I beleive common law is about 7yrs. Fuck whats two years these days anyways? nothing at all, its just the goverment not thinking and trying to fuck everyone like usual. |
Quote:
I think its difficult to say exactly what happens. If, for instance, she buys ALL the groceries, pays bills and ALL the incendiary expenses and he pays ALL the mortgage, then you can say that they each have contributed to the household, and at the end of the relationship should walk away with a share. But, if he pays everything and she sits like a lump, well then, is she entitled to half the house after 2 years? Unfortunately, you need to just have a law that says, this is what it is. I think its important for people to understand that this is a real issue, and have a conversation beyond, "where are we going to put the sofa" and actually find out where everyone's head space is. I would be super pissed if I was on the hook for someone's student loan just because a relationship of 2 years went south. |
Quote:
With that said, I imagine that a lot of people will be lawyering up and keeping the notaries busy. Posted via RS Mobile |
Quote:
I know that most people here think that the law will screw over men, but you know, there are some who have partners with no debt and just as much in assets (if not more). Women have as much to lose under the new law as men (though, many on RS are millionaires.) Posted via RS Mobile |
Quote:
Quote:
In the case of the woman in the article, if she expected a share of the boyfriend's house because she was cooking & cleaning for him on her disability pension, she should have straight up told him he had to get hitched. If he said no, then she should have left. That's all there is to it. |
Quote:
I disagree with this law. So if my gf lived with me for 2 years she is entitled to half my assets if I purchased it during our relationship tenure. That's kinda BS. One bad breakup and im fucked. I understand the reason they decided to put this in, but why not choose 5 years or some longer length? There are soo many two year relationships out there. This is stupid. How hard was the Gold Diggers association lobbying this? |
Quote:
|
anyway to sign like a prenup for this? lol fucking bc government, which retard though this was a good idea |
Quote:
I would say this law gives people who have significant investments or pensions pause for thought. They have something to lose. Posted via RS Mobile |
this is sorta bullshit. in this day and age with the sky rocketing cost of housing both purchasing and renting, many couples move in together simply for cutting housing costs, even in relationships that arent expected to go to marriage. lots of people date for 3-5 years without intending to marry. so lets just for example say i get a good job and work 60 hours a week for 2 years to make 250k in that time, and my gf decides to quit her job and go back to school and take on student loans. i pay for housing, food, bills, etc, and she lives off credit while shes going to school. after a few years, it doesnt work out because she says im working too much and we break up. now shes entitled to half my shit and im stuck carrying half her student loan and personal debts? and now i need to pay a lawyer to write up a contract that says we are opting out of this new law? you used to need a contract (marriage licence) to prove you were married. now you need one to prove you arent? i can just imagine the conversation about needing my gf to sign a contract to simply LIVE together. bringing up the pre-nup conversation would be bad enough |
My best friend and one of his Exs were living together at his parents house for over a year. Yes he admits that he is dumb for staying with her when i told him over and over to get out.. So this got me thinking.. She had maxed out credit cards and was months behind on rent from before they got together and her hydro and gas bills etc. In one year she was in 5 car crashes, all her vehicles were destroyed and icbc deemed her at fault for all of them. They took her license some time after they started dating and she quite her job. She stayed at home and did not work during this time as she was either sore or handing our resumes, Thats a different story compared to what his parents told us. Things that she never paid for while they were dating: Rent, gas, groceries, clothes, Almost a pack of menthol cigarets a day. Heck she even got him to pay her insurance for the last month before icbc took her license which was something like $622. They also had a rogers couples plan a month or so into the relationship. They broke up and she took off with the phone and he had to report it stolen and i took over the extra line as he was already low on cash working 2 part time jobs. Why should he all of a sudden be responsible for half her debt when he already had her draining his bank account (Other then him being an idiot :badpokerface:) |
Rich mainlander girls, watch out! hahaha |
I think the law needs to be reviewed big time, now I only just briefly read it, but from the article at least it seems You get half of their assets only if it was purchased within the 2 years, I am kinda 50/50 on that... but you know what, I would let that slide... the thing that gets me is You are now liable for 50% of their debt regardless when or where they incurred in their life?! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?! LIKE WHAT THE FUCK, why not make the rules fair at least, saying that you are now liable for the debt for your common law that was incurred during the 2 years that you were together?! OR BETTER, ANY DEBT that you actually co-signed together with your partner. whats the point of taking out a loan together as a couple then when only one person in the relationship is needed to screw the whole party over.. What if someone has a huge ass debt, gets together with someone, for the full 2 years paying minimum payment knowing that the big break is going to come the moment, its like getting a 50% off deal on everything -.- as for the example case in the article, the women should have went to the lawyer to get something signed ahead of time. why did the govt didnt make people who want to share fiances go sign on contract, but reversing to have people signed to opt out is beyond me... //end rant =P conclusion, i see many many many implications to this new law, we had common-law and marriage as two different categories for a reason, the govt needs to get reminded |
Quote:
|
Quote:
People tend to think that lawyers and policy makers in Victoria operate in a vacuum. The reality is that a law like this is carefully considered with many people and players consulted. Speaking from first-hand experience, no decisions get made without several rounds of consultations. Quote:
She would be entitled to a portion of anything you acquire during the relationship which seems reasonable and fair to me. I personally don't agree with the sharing of debts, but I guess that's why in any relationship, you would need to make such decisions jointly. My intention is not to get all preachy, but again, I think the whole point of the legislation is to get people to take a hard look at their relationships and to get people to think about their future. After all, we all suffer particularly if children are involved and cases get backed up in the courts. But, like I said, RS has a disproportionate amount of high-income earners that are men, so naturally, this group has the most to lose (particularly, if they have a fondness for women who like to live on credit.) Quote:
I definitely agree that emotions are a wildcard in any relationship. But, you hear just as many stories about women getting screwed over by deadbeat men. Both parties have just as much to lose. On the other hand, I've never dated a bar star who blows her chain restaurant paycheque on booze and clothes; I've only dated university-educated women with no debts and steady paycheques. |
Stupid law. You can't auto marry someone like that. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net