August 16, 2024 • 38 mins
Graeme Fraser
Graeme is Head of Family at William Sturges and has specialised in family law for over 25 years. He has considerable experience in advising on financial settlements involving complex assets and substantial wealth. His practice covers divorce, financial settlements involving complicated assets and substantial wealth, children issues, marital agreements, cohabitation, intervenors, insolvency-related settlements, European Family law, relationship breakdowns, tax rules on divorce, use of experts, corporate and family law strategic advice and multi-ethnic law.
Graeme is well-known in the legal community through thought leadership, committee work, training Members, and being a media spokesman for the BBC, SKY, FT, and Times. He has spearheaded the campaign for cohabitation law reform in England and Wales. As Chair of Resolution’s Cohabitation Committee, he has been able to influence practice and policy that positively impacts his peers and improves outcomes for separating families.
https://www.williamsturges.co.uk
Tamsin Caine
Tamsin is a Chartered Financial Planner with over 20 years experience. She works with couples and individuals who are at the end of a relationship and want agree how to divide their assets FAIRLY without a fight.
You can contact Tamsin at tamsin@smartdivorce.co.uk or arrange a free initial meeting using https://bit.ly/SmDiv15min. She is also part of the team running Facebook group Separation, Divorce and Dissolution UK
Tamsin Caine MSc., FPFS
Chartered Financial Planner
Smart Divorce Ltd
https://smartdivorce.co.uk
P.S. I am the co-author of “My Divorce Handbook – It’s What You Do Next That Counts”, written by divorce specialists and lawyers writing about their area of expertise to help walk you through the divorce process. You can buy it here https://yourdivorcehandbook.co.uk/buy-the-book/
To learn more about our podcast sponsor Ampla Finance – access their product guide here: https://bit.ly/3Ieqmuc
Or complete enquiry form https://bit.ly/3W4J7pz and one of the team will be in touch.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Tamsin Caine (00:02):
Hello and welcome to another bonus episode of the
Smart Divorce Podcast.
Today we're going to be talkingcohabitation If you're living
with a partner and you separate.
What happens and why there is aneed for cohabitation reform in
(00:24):
this country, and I amdelighted to be joined today by
one of the leading experts onthis subject, Graeme Fraser.
Graeme is Head of Family atWilliams Surges and has
specialised in family law forover 25 years, although I'm not
sure he looks old enough forthat, but there you go.
He has considerable experiencein advising on financial
(00:45):
settlements, in involvingcomplex assets and substantial
wealth.
He's well known in the familylaw community through thought
leadership, community work,training members and being a
media spokesman spokesman, maybe, sure you should say
spokesperson and he hasspearheaded the campaign for
cohabitation reform in Englandand Wales.
(01:05):
As chair of ResolutionCohabitation Committee, he has
been able to influence practiceand policy that positively
impacts his peers and improvesoutcomes for separating families
, and I think it's fair to saythere's still some work to do.
Hi Graeme thank you so much forcoming along and joining us
today.
Hello, tamsin,and thank you so much for coming
along and joining ustoday.
Graeme Fraser (01:26):
Hello, tamsin, and thank you very much for that
introduction.
Tamsin Caine (01:30):
No pleasure.
So let's start with the myth ofcouples who live together with
no civil partnership and nomarriage being somehow called
common law husband and wife andtherefore that in giving them
(01:52):
similar rights to a marriedcouple.
So that that's absolutely notthe case, is it?
Graeme Fraser (01:59):
no, it's not the case, but it's a very wide
perception and a series ofsurveys have been done, called
the British Attitudes Survey,which is funded research done by
universities, and it's becomeclear from those surveys that a
large part of the populationslightly less than half the
(02:20):
population, the adult populationdo believe they have the same
rights on divorce as they wouldif they had been cohabiting.
And, most worryingly, that mythis most widely held amongst
those very people who are theones who might be experiencing
relationship breakdown, giventheir age groups.
(02:41):
What we can tell you is thatthe law is completely different
if you are living together asopposed to being married, and
the law actually isn't aspecific area of family law,
it's right across the law.
So it's actually quitedifficult to work out what
(03:02):
people's rights are, butessentially there are very
limited property law rights andthere are some rights for
children of unmarried couples.
Tamsin Caine (03:14):
There are also rights in Tamsin areas of law,
such as housing and socialsecurity, work and things like
that, but but essentially it's awhole hodgepodge and it's not
um how you would look at the lawif you had been married very
different okay, can we take a asort of an example of a couple
(03:38):
who've been living into in ahouse perhaps she's moved into
his house, um, and she's beencontributing to the family in
terms of, um, perhaps payinghalf the mortgage amount even
though she's not named on it,perhaps contributing to bills,
and so on, what?
What would be the position ifthat couple were cohabiting?
(04:03):
And what would be the positionif that couple were married?
Graeme Fraser (04:06):
Yeah, it slightly depends, tamsin, on whether
they've got children or not.
But if we leave the children toone side for the purpose of
this example, which I thinkmakes it clearer, we can talk
about children maybe a bit lateron.
The situation is that if youlive together, it doesn't matter
how long you've been livingtogether at all, and it doesn't
(04:28):
matter what contributions havebeen made.
The only contributions that arerelevant is how much has been
spent on buying the family home,so, in other words, what is
spent at the time that you buythe property, so what is put
down on a deposit or on thebalance when you buy the
(04:50):
property, and then how themortgage is paid.
In the absence of being able toprove that, it's very, very
difficult indeed to assertrights.
And in the example you've given, which I believe is where it's
in the man's name which we'rebeing gender specific, it is
very, very difficult for thewoman in that situation to prove
(05:13):
that she has rights.
In order to prove that she hasrights, she's going to have to
prove that there was somethingcalled a common intention,
constructive trust, that therewas something called a common
intention, constructive trust.
I'm not going to attempt toexplain that because that would
take about an hour just to do tofamily lawyers.
So I'm certainly going toattempt it on this podcast, but
(05:36):
proving that is very difficult.
But from practice, what I cantell you is that what happens at
the time that you buy theproperty is really, really
important, and what wasdocumented at that time is
important.
That of course, the difficultyfor couples is that they don't
know that's the law, so theydon't go into that transaction,
(05:59):
buying a property together,thinking that that's the most
important thing.
Now we do know that conveyancessend out what's called a report
on title, encouraging people toexplain how they're going to
hold property.
But the reality is that peoplearen't focused on that at the
time.
They're focused on what theyregard as opposed to happy
events buying a property, andthat they're focused on that and
(06:22):
they're not thinking about whatdiscussions they were having
and what was being recorded atthe time.
And then they find out muchlater down the line, perhaps
when the relationships anddifficulties, and then they get
legal advice, that the law isthat you might not have any
rights at all and it's too lateto do anything about it.
So so that's essentially thedilemma under the current law
(06:45):
and if that couple were married?
Tamsin Caine (06:47):
Yeah absolutely wouldn't be the case, would it?
Graeme Fraser (06:50):
yeah, no, the the law is completely different.
So the situation if you'remarried is Graeme, um, there is
legislation that applies, um,and it's a discretionary
legislation, so it's it's basedon a range of factors, but
essentially a court, in thatsituation, has the powers to
(07:12):
make any orders it sees fit inrelation to property.
But, importantly, through theprinciples that have been
developed over the last 25 yearsor so, the principles that have
been developed over the last 25years or so, it's clear that
where a home is used as a familyhome, particularly as part of a
marriage, then the startingpoint very often not always, but
(07:36):
very often, particularly afterthey've been there for a
reasonable amount of time, say10 years that they will, they
will automatically be sharing sothat, so the, so the property
will be.
The starting point is theproperty is divided equally.
And that's not the case, um, ifyou're not married, because it
will largely be what the uhtitle deed say well, that's a
(08:01):
massive difference, isn it?
Tamsin Caine (08:03):
And you mentioned that where there are children
involved, there are differencesas well.
So, harry, basically, can youtalk us through some of those
differences?
Graeme Fraser (08:16):
Yeah, well, the starting point where there are
children is that there'ssomething called the Child
Maintenance Service, which usedto be called the child support
agency, and I think at one pointit was called cmec.
Doesn't really matter how youlabel it.
Um, doesn't work particularlywell, unfortunately, uh, I have
to say, but I think what camebefore it didn't work
(08:36):
particularly well either.
So, um, but essentially that isthe scheme, scheme by which the
parent with care, very oftenthe mother, is entitled to
financial support to the parentwho's not living with the child,
so often called thenon-resident parent, often the
father and that and that schemeoperates under a formula based
(09:01):
on a percentage of that person'sincome, also taking into
account the amount of time thechild spends living with the
parent whom the child isn'tliving with, so in other words,
nights during the week spentwith father.
So that's the starting point,but on top of that, there is
(09:21):
also other law, which is a partof the Children Act, which
provides, in certaincircumstances, financial
provision for those children.
Now, this part of the law isnot used very much and it's
often seen as a top up to thatchild maintenance scheme and
(09:44):
it's very rarely accessed,possibly because a lot of people
don't know about it and,secondly, it's usually available
only to people who can affordit.
So the threshold is quite highto access it in the first place.
And one of the criticisms that'smade of the current law and I
think a perfectly valid one isthat children should be entitled
(10:07):
to the same financial provisionand rights, irrespective of
whether their parents aremarried or not.
But here we are in 2024 and thereality, I feel, is that
children of married parents tendto be much better off
financially at the end of arelationship than those of
(10:29):
unmarried parents, and I saythat that's completely wrong.
Having said all of that, tamsin, in a situation the example
that you provided where thereare children, in that situation,
if it's affordable, it ispossible for a property to be
held for the children to live inwhile they are growing up, um,
(10:55):
but it is only for a specificperiod of time.
So it could be until, um thechildren are 16 that there would
be all finished their full-timesecondary education.
It is dependent on the motherdoing all that she can to
support the situation, whichwill probably mean having to
work and pay towards themortgage as much that period.
(11:21):
Then, based on the law, thenthat property will go back to
the division that I explained atthe beginning, which is based
on the title deeds, unless youcan prove intentions were
different to hold the propertyin a different way.
So what you find there inpretty much all instances is
(11:44):
that where the woman becomesolder and the children are older
, she has very little, verylimited, if rights at all at
that stage and and that's thethe predicament that women find
themselves in that situation.
And so, in contrast to whathappens when you're married,
(12:06):
there is no acknowledgement ofthe contributions that a woman
would have made as a mother andin terms of looking after the
home.
And that's essentially thesituation that women sometimes
find themselves in when they goto see solicitors Resolution.
(12:28):
Our national organisation hasrun a series of member surveys
on this and has found that innearly all cases, lawyers found
that they found themselves insituations where there was
nothing they could do to helptheir clients when they were in
that situation it's sofrustrating and and upsetting,
isn't it?
Tamsin Caine (12:47):
because you've got a client who comes in and
thinks well, I must be entitledto something, I've been
financially contributing, and soit feels to me, and I'm sure to
you, that something needs tochange.
And there are jurisdictionsthroughout the globe who do have
(13:11):
different cohabitation laws,and my understanding is that
we're looking at a couple ofthose to try and persuade our
government to to make somechanges to cohabitation laws.
Um, is that that's the case?
I've understood that right.
Yeah yeah.
Graeme Fraser (13:32):
So just to break that down a little bit, at the
point that we're recording this,we're we're at the start of a
new government and a change ofpolitical party running that
government and in the labourmanifesto there was a commitment
to achieve better protectionsfor cohabiting couples and I
think the wording wasspecifically towards improving
(13:55):
rights for women.
Now we're not quite clear whatthat means yet and I believe
there will be discussions withthe new government about what
that means and we will see howthat unfolds in the first
hundred days of any newgovernment where there's been a
change of political party,there's obviously a lot of
change anyway.
So let's wait and see whathappens on that.
(14:18):
Yeah, fingers crossed.
However, in terms of what'shappened across the globe, as it
were, there are two main typesof model that exist, and the
first model is called adifference model and that exists
actually within the BritishIsles, in Scotland and Ireland,
(14:40):
particularly in some of theCommonwealth countries, whereby
couples are getting the samerights or very similar rights to
(15:04):
those of married couples aftera certain period of time or if
they've had children.
So those are the two models.
Essentially, I think they'recalled either the difference
model or the de facto model.
Those are the two main types ofmodels that operate across the
globe and we have looked atthose comparative cases in order
(15:32):
to inform us what might workhere.
And that's been the subject ofsome research and it's the
subject of some discussion andit's probably the subject of
some policy consideration aswell.
Tamsin Caine (15:46):
Is there a I don't know consensus feels like the
wrong word, but a preferencebetween those models that we see
elsewhere in the world that wemight feel was more appropriate
for the UK, or one that we'recertainly a resolution are going
(16:08):
to the government and saying wethink this is the right
solution.
Graeme Fraser (16:14):
Well, I think the answer is there's several
different aspects to that answer.
I think over time, over thelast 40 years, which is the
period since which Resolutionhas been campaigning, there was
a case called Burns and Burns in1983, which basically was the
(16:34):
example that you were talkingabout at the beginning, which is
a woman finding herself at theend of a relationship with no
rights at all.
And I think that over manyyears, certainly in this country
, there have been a series ofarguments for the difference
model, and that was very clearlythe case in terms of the
(16:56):
recommendations made by the LawCommission in 2007.
And the Law Commission is setup to suggest new laws to the
government, and that was on thebasis of a limited scheme, but
with a wider discretion.
So a similar discretion, but ona more limited basis, to what
(17:17):
would happen on divorce in thiscountry.
But, on the other hand, therehave been other countries where
this law has worked quite well,and, in particular, australia
and New Zealand.
I'm not saying it's perfect.
There were criticisms of that,as there were criticisms of any
law, but the argument by thosewho would like to see marriage
(17:39):
like rights is that it's likelyto be easier to implement and
the law is likely to be clearerand probably a bit more
accessible.
The issue, however, is probablyone of policy, which is is it
right to give people who havenot chosen to marry
(18:01):
automatically the same rightsafter a period of time, or does
the decision to marry make adecision, make a difference?
Because that's a consciousdecision, and there are certain
things about marriage that Ithink people do understand At a
(18:22):
basic level.
People understand that marriagemeans something different in law
, so is it right to extend that,and what would work best for
this country as opposed to whatworks elsewhere, because each
country has a slightly differentculture and a different
approach to how they want theirlaws to be run.
The other thing that's beenrunning through the law for many
(18:45):
years terms in is this ideathat families want to make
decisions for themselves aboutwhat happens in their future.
So when people get marriedalthough if we were having this
discussion 20 years ago, wewould then be talking about, oh,
(19:06):
nuptial agreements that neverhappens in England, that's just
something that happens inHollywood Well, nowadays,
nowadays, nuptial agreements arevery common, so the law
generally does respect theindependence of people to make
decisions about what happenswhen their relationship comes to
(19:26):
an end.
So one of the queries aboutintroducing new law is how much
respect would be given to thatindependence as to what people
want to do.
Tamsin Caine (19:37):
Crikey, it's tricky, isn't it?
I mean, you've got feeling.
My gut feeling kind of feelslike, well, if you've lived
together for a certain amount oftime, it feels right to have
similar rights as a marriedcouple.
However, there is the pointthat you say that you might
almost fall into that, whereasif you, if you marry or enter
(20:01):
into civil partnership, you aremaking a a firm decision to
enter into that as a partnershipand and kind of financially
link yourself to another person.
So that does that feel In termsof the difference model, and I
feel like this is going to beperhaps really complicated and
(20:22):
potentially beyond the scope.
But what differences does thedifference model have to what
the rights are of a marriedcouple or a civil partnership?
Graeme Fraser (20:37):
Well, the difference model is based on
several elements.
First of all, you have to beeligible in order to qualify on
the difference model.
And eligibility either means,under the Law Commission model
and some of the proposals thatResolution has made over the
years, that would meanautomatically having children it
(21:00):
doesn't mean that in some othercountries but it also means
being in a recognized cohabitingrelationship for several years,
and there have been a number ofideas about that, whether it
should be two, which reflectslaws that are available to
inhabitants on inheritancelegislation, or it could be
(21:23):
three years, which is more basedon what happens under children
law, or it could be five yearsto allow a longer period for
eligibility.
But that's one of the startingpoints.
And then, under the differencemodel, there is really a
question of looking for somesort of qualifying contribution
(21:45):
having been made to therelationship, which may be an
active contribution or it mayhave been something that was a
sacrifice that was made, what Isuppose we would term and I'm
sorry, I don't want to get tootechnical, but it's what's
called relationship.
It's called relationshipgenerated disadvantage.
(22:06):
So as a result of being in therelationship, you may have given
up career opportunities or youmay have made active
contributions the sort ofcontributions you were talking
about right at the beginning ofthis discussion to looking after
children or making activecontributions to the family home
(22:29):
but they're not actuallycontributions that are ones that
add value to the property orshow that you are a property
owner what we call thebeneficial ownership.
So it's recognising thosecontributions in a certain way,
and I think the model that wesee where that's happened most
closely to us is in Scotland,and that was actually the model
(22:53):
that the government wanted tolook at following the Law
Commission report back in 2007.
Tamsin Caine (23:01):
2007.
Okay, so I guess therelationship disadvantage can't
remember what you called itsomething fancy would be like if
, if the one of the partners hada job in germany and and the
whole, then the couple movedlock back and and barrel to
Germany for a couple of years.
(23:21):
That would potentially be theexample of of that sort of thing
, would it?
Graeme Fraser (23:27):
Yeah, I mean it's giving up, it's making
sacrifices in order to possiblyit could be supporting the.
I used to use the gender ofmale and female, but of course
we know, um, that actually it'sa lot more complex than that.
Uh terms in, because there aremany men who, uh, many men who
(23:52):
actually now stay at home aswell.
I suppose we call house husbandand also we have part-time
working and shift working, sopeople work in many different
ways and um in in in the 21stcentury.
But but essentially, if we lookat a more traditional model,
then, um, mothers who gave uptheir career possibly followed
(24:16):
the father um gave up.
They sometimes they actuallysell their property, but they
these aren't situations actually, perhaps where the father is
more aware, but they're not butthey're not being allowed to
invest their share in thefather's property, so they don't
have anything to show for itand they may actually have spent
(24:37):
that money, but it's somethingthat can be that can be tracked,
but it's something that can bethat can be tracked.
And the point is that, havingbeen able to show those
contributions or sort of orsacrifices or any disadvantage
suffered, that you can then haveaccess to the menu of remedies
available under financialremedies on divorce, which
(25:01):
allows a much more flexible wayof giving financial provision.
So, for example, what we don'thave now is it's not possible to
share pensions if you'reunmarried, and also there are
limits on what we call a carer'sallowance, which enables
(25:24):
mothers to go back to work.
That's not really fullydeveloped.
And also there would be anopportunity under the new law to
pay what's called maintenanceor periodical payments, possibly
for a short amount of time,which allows women in those
situations to get back on theirfeet and is often very helpful
in marriages, particularly shortmarriages.
(25:47):
So it's really allowingflexibility in the law to
provide with these situations.
And what I say about all of thisis that it's not about
encouraging us to have a wholeload of new cases in the law
courts.
That's not what we're talkingabout at all.
Obviously, there will be testcases, as there would be on any
(26:09):
new law, but it's aboutencouraging the law to grow in a
way that works for families,which means that when we look to
settle our cases, they're mucheasier to.
So if you go through mediationor collaborative law or these
types of models, cases that havefairer laws are easier to
(26:30):
settle and actually familylawyers do settle most of their
cases.
The cases that we can't settleare because the law is hard, and
then you end up with familiesnot actually having a remedy,
either because they couldn'taccess it in the first place or
there simply isn't somethingfair to do.
But then you're relying on thecouple itself to agree to enter
(26:53):
into something that's fair, butit doesn't say that in the law.
So it's much better for the lawto say what is fair, so that we
can reach those solutions sure,I mean that that makes complete
sense.
Tamsin Caine (27:06):
My, um, my question so we, um, we both
attended and you took part in uma debate on on this very
subject, um, a couple of monthsago, um, and my, when I was
thinking about it before theevent, and I was thinking about
what, what do I feel about this?
How, what questions have I got?
(27:28):
My overriding question, as acomplete novice and not as a
lawyer, was how how does do newlaws, how are they going to
apply to couples who are in arelationship together, as
opposed to people who know eachother buying together, so you
(27:50):
and me buying together, mebuying with my sister, you know
a couple of friends buyingtogether.
How how do we go aboutestablishing there's a
relationship there as opposed toit's a, it's a friendship,
buying a property together?
Because you can't really can't,mix those things up, can you?
Graeme Fraser (28:09):
because the rights then become very confused
well, I think you've made avery good point, um, and it's
certainly if.
If we do see new legislationbeing debated in Parliament, I
think the point that you've madewill come up, which is that
people will say well, if you'regoing to have new legislation
(28:31):
for people living together in arelationship, why can't that
extend to friends or people in asibling relationship or
something like that?
I do think that we are lookingat something fairly clear here
that these are people who aren'tmarried but live together as
(28:56):
though they are married withoutthe formality of marriage,
without the formality ofmarriage.
So I personally think that itis necessary for that couple to
be in an intimate relationship.
Not everybody agrees with that,but I think that's hugely
relevant to it.
But I think living in the samespace, living in the same
(29:18):
property, being in thatrelationship and having usually
having some financialinterdependence between them are
clear markers, and so there's aparallel to be drawn to being
married.
I personally think that thoseother categories would probably
(29:42):
fall more under property law,but for anybody who wants to buy
a property, there is always anoption to enter something called
a declaration of trust, whichclearly sets out how you own
that property, and you can alsoenter into an agreement and we
call them cohabitationagreements, um.
(30:03):
I've seen them called familylife agreements, um.
But you can.
You can decide within thoseagreements how you want to
regulate um, how the householdis run, how you may own property
in the future, what you decideto do on death and what you
decide to do in the event of abreakup.
(30:23):
And I don't think, and thatwould certainly still be
possible within those categories, obviously the relationship
would be different.
But you can.
You can regulate those and, infact, some ways, it's easier to
regulate those situationsbecause it's more, I suppose,
more of a business-likerelationship rather than a
(30:44):
family-type relationship, and Ithink the existing law is better
suited to people in abusiness-type relationship, for
example, tamsin, a couple ormaybe four people owning a guest
house or a commercial property,and that really was what this
property law that we currentlyapply to people living together
(31:08):
is better suited for, and thelaws are slightly differently
applied.
But I do think there's adistinction.
I do think there's aconversation to be had and I
think it will be had, but what Iwould say is the number of
people who are affected at themoment is so great that we just
can't, we can't ignore it and weknow from the demographics, the
recent censuses, that it's nowone in five adults who are in a
(31:33):
relationship are cohabiting, andI just say that we cannot
ignore 20% of the population.
It is actually the biggestpriority in terms of new family
law is to bring in law thatprotects those people.
Tamsin Caine (31:49):
I think you're absolutely right.
It's amazing that it hasn'thappened yet and let's hope that
currently the government get onto this.
But, as you say, they've got alot of things on at the moment.
But let's hope that they stickwith the terms of their
manifesto and start making somechanges.
We're coming to the end of ourtime together.
(32:10):
Is there anything you'd like toadd or anything that you think
that I should have asked about?
That we haven't covered.
Graeme Fraser (32:18):
I think the thing to emphasise is that the people
who are getting together sothey're buying a property
together or maybe they are inrelationship difficulties it's
the importance of getting adviceas soon as possible, and that's
probably going to work best interms of a combination of advice
.
So you're going to need advicefrom your legal advisor and try
(32:42):
and get that advice quickly.
Don't rely on the internet,please, because because we
provide bespoke advice to yoursituation and everybody's family
is different and everysituation is different, so do
get specialist advice and alsobe aware that we link up with
(33:03):
different services, so sometimesit's counsellors or or
relationship coaches, I think,as we call them and and also you
know, it's a whole myriad ofservices.
It's not usually one person ontheir own.
So getting that advice earlyreally makes a difference, and I
(33:24):
think, in terms of the law,what a lot of people say about
this was well, it should beobvious that if you're not
married, you don't have rights.
If you want to get rights, getmarried.
Actually, what it's about isawareness, so being aware of
what the law is now, but alsohaving that with modernised law.
(33:47):
So what we need to do goingforward is make sure that we
have laws that work for allfamilies, irrespective of
whether they're married orunmarried not a subject of this
discussion but we should alwaysbe reviewing our laws to see if
they work and, at the same time,making sure that the public are
(34:07):
aware what the law is as well.
So we've got a dual role and Ithink it's really anybody
working within family law hasthat responsibility and making
sure that we can clearlycommunicate to people what the
law actually is, what theirrights are and what they can do
about it and what they should bedoing about it.
(34:28):
And I think if they think inthose terms, then you're really
protecting yourself in thefuture and informing yourself.
And you might actually have,because there are plenty of
people who aren't breaking up,who are still concerned about it
.
You may just have a little bitof clarity going forward,
because one of the worstsituations in life is, um,
(34:48):
unfortunately, when people dobreak up.
It's probably the secondbiggest trauma after death.
So instead of having thatsituation unearth itself in a
really unpleasant and untimelyway and then finding out the law
doesn't work very well, takesteps that you need to you know
quite early on, so you know,make a will.
(35:08):
Think about having acohabitation agreement, think
about having a declaration oftrust.
Keep one eye out for when thelaw is changing.
You know, I don't think the lawfamily law doesn't change
particularly quickly in thiscountry and then, as a result of
that, people often think thelaw is different to what
actually what it actually is.
(35:30):
So getting really clear, um,reliable advice and getting that
with all the services that areavailable is really the best
thing you can do in that, inthis situation no, absolutely
spot on.
Tamsin Caine (35:44):
And and I know lots of people who listen to
this podcast are coming out of amarriage or a civil partnership
and thinking about enteringinto another one and saying,
well, I'm never getting marriedagain and not understanding the
implications of that, of thatcohabitation and and I think you
think a cohabitation agreementand getting legal advice is
(36:07):
absolutely paramount up front ifyou're entering into a
relationship that's new, becauseyou don't want to come out of
that and find that you're in adifferent position than the one
you thought you were.
Graham, thank you so much forall your um wise words today and
it's been great to speak to you.
Thank you for joining me.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Thank you times in hi , and I hope you enjoyed that
episode of the smart divorcepodcast.
If you would like to get intouch, please have a look in the
show notes for our details orgo on to the website,
wwwsmartdivorcecouk.
Also, if you are listening onapple podcasts or on spotify and
(36:52):
you wouldn't mind leaving us alovely five-star review, that
would be fantastic.
I know that lots of ourlisteners are finding this is
incredibly helpful in theirjourney through separation,
divorce and dissolving a civilpartnership.
Also, if you would like somefurther support, we do have a
Facebook group now.
(37:12):
It's called Separation, divorceand Dissolution UK.
Please do go on to Facebook,search up the group and we'd be
delighted to have you join us,and the one thing I would say is
do please answer theirmembership questions.
Okay, have a great day and takecare.
Hello and welcome to another bonus episode of the
Smart Divorce Podcast.
Today we're going to be talkingcohabitation If you're living
with a partner and you separate.
What happens and why there is aneed for cohabitation reform in
(00:24):
this country, and I amdelighted to be joined today by
one of the leading experts onthis subject, Graeme Fraser.
Graeme is Head of Family atWilliams Surges and has
specialised in family law forover 25 years, although I'm not
sure he looks old enough forthat, but there you go.
He has considerable experiencein advising on financial
(00:45):
settlements, in involvingcomplex assets and substantial
wealth.
He's well known in the familylaw community through thought
leadership, community work,training members and being a
media spokesman spokesman, maybe, sure you should say
spokesperson and he hasspearheaded the campaign for
cohabitation reform in Englandand Wales.
(01:05):
As chair of ResolutionCohabitation Committee, he has
been able to influence practiceand policy that positively
impacts his peers and improvesoutcomes for separating families
, and I think it's fair to saythere's still some work to do.
Hi Graeme thank you so much forcoming along and joining us
today.
Hello, tamsin,and thank you so much for coming
along and joining ustoday.
Graeme Fraser (01:26):
Hello, tamsin, and thank you very much for that
introduction.
Tamsin Caine (01:30):
No pleasure.
So let's start with the myth ofcouples who live together with
no civil partnership and nomarriage being somehow called
common law husband and wife andtherefore that in giving them
(01:52):
similar rights to a marriedcouple.
So that that's absolutely notthe case, is it?
Graeme Fraser (01:59):
no, it's not the case, but it's a very wide
perception and a series ofsurveys have been done, called
the British Attitudes Survey,which is funded research done by
universities, and it's becomeclear from those surveys that a
large part of the populationslightly less than half the
(02:20):
population, the adult populationdo believe they have the same
rights on divorce as they wouldif they had been cohabiting.
And, most worryingly, that mythis most widely held amongst
those very people who are theones who might be experiencing
relationship breakdown, giventheir age groups.
(02:41):
What we can tell you is thatthe law is completely different
if you are living together asopposed to being married, and
the law actually isn't aspecific area of family law,
it's right across the law.
So it's actually quitedifficult to work out what
(03:02):
people's rights are, butessentially there are very
limited property law rights andthere are some rights for
children of unmarried couples.
Tamsin Caine (03:14):
There are also rights in Tamsin areas of law,
such as housing and socialsecurity, work and things like
that, but but essentially it's awhole hodgepodge and it's not
um how you would look at the lawif you had been married very
different okay, can we take a asort of an example of a couple
(03:38):
who've been living into in ahouse perhaps she's moved into
his house, um, and she's beencontributing to the family in
terms of, um, perhaps payinghalf the mortgage amount even
though she's not named on it,perhaps contributing to bills,
and so on, what?
What would be the position ifthat couple were cohabiting?
(04:03):
And what would be the positionif that couple were married?
Graeme Fraser (04:06):
Yeah, it slightly depends, tamsin, on whether
they've got children or not.
But if we leave the children toone side for the purpose of
this example, which I thinkmakes it clearer, we can talk
about children maybe a bit lateron.
The situation is that if youlive together, it doesn't matter
how long you've been livingtogether at all, and it doesn't
(04:28):
matter what contributions havebeen made.
The only contributions that arerelevant is how much has been
spent on buying the family home,so, in other words, what is
spent at the time that you buythe property, so what is put
down on a deposit or on thebalance when you buy the
(04:50):
property, and then how themortgage is paid.
In the absence of being able toprove that, it's very, very
difficult indeed to assertrights.
And in the example you've given, which I believe is where it's
in the man's name which we'rebeing gender specific, it is
very, very difficult for thewoman in that situation to prove
(05:13):
that she has rights.
In order to prove that she hasrights, she's going to have to
prove that there was somethingcalled a common intention,
constructive trust, that therewas something called a common
intention, constructive trust.
I'm not going to attempt toexplain that because that would
take about an hour just to do tofamily lawyers.
So I'm certainly going toattempt it on this podcast, but
(05:36):
proving that is very difficult.
But from practice, what I cantell you is that what happens at
the time that you buy theproperty is really, really
important, and what wasdocumented at that time is
important.
That of course, the difficultyfor couples is that they don't
know that's the law, so theydon't go into that transaction,
(05:59):
buying a property together,thinking that that's the most
important thing.
Now we do know that conveyancessend out what's called a report
on title, encouraging people toexplain how they're going to
hold property.
But the reality is that peoplearen't focused on that at the
time.
They're focused on what theyregard as opposed to happy
events buying a property, andthat they're focused on that and
(06:22):
they're not thinking about whatdiscussions they were having
and what was being recorded atthe time.
And then they find out muchlater down the line, perhaps
when the relationships anddifficulties, and then they get
legal advice, that the law isthat you might not have any
rights at all and it's too lateto do anything about it.
So so that's essentially thedilemma under the current law
(06:45):
and if that couple were married?
Tamsin Caine (06:47):
Yeah absolutely wouldn't be the case, would it?
Graeme Fraser (06:50):
yeah, no, the the law is completely different.
So the situation if you'remarried is Graeme, um, there is
legislation that applies, um,and it's a discretionary
legislation, so it's it's basedon a range of factors, but
essentially a court, in thatsituation, has the powers to
(07:12):
make any orders it sees fit inrelation to property.
But, importantly, through theprinciples that have been
developed over the last 25 yearsor so, the principles that have
been developed over the last 25years or so, it's clear that
where a home is used as a familyhome, particularly as part of a
marriage, then the startingpoint very often not always, but
(07:36):
very often, particularly afterthey've been there for a
reasonable amount of time, say10 years that they will, they
will automatically be sharing sothat, so the, so the property
will be.
The starting point is theproperty is divided equally.
And that's not the case, um, ifyou're not married, because it
will largely be what the uhtitle deed say well, that's a
(08:01):
massive difference, isn it?
Tamsin Caine (08:03):
And you mentioned that where there are children
involved, there are differencesas well.
So, harry, basically, can youtalk us through some of those
differences?
Graeme Fraser (08:16):
Yeah, well, the starting point where there are
children is that there'ssomething called the Child
Maintenance Service, which usedto be called the child support
agency, and I think at one pointit was called cmec.
Doesn't really matter how youlabel it.
Um, doesn't work particularlywell, unfortunately, uh, I have
to say, but I think what camebefore it didn't work
(08:36):
particularly well either.
So, um, but essentially that isthe scheme, scheme by which the
parent with care, very oftenthe mother, is entitled to
financial support to the parentwho's not living with the child,
so often called thenon-resident parent, often the
father and that and that schemeoperates under a formula based
(09:01):
on a percentage of that person'sincome, also taking into
account the amount of time thechild spends living with the
parent whom the child isn'tliving with, so in other words,
nights during the week spentwith father.
So that's the starting point,but on top of that, there is
(09:21):
also other law, which is a partof the Children Act, which
provides, in certaincircumstances, financial
provision for those children.
Now, this part of the law isnot used very much and it's
often seen as a top up to thatchild maintenance scheme and
(09:44):
it's very rarely accessed,possibly because a lot of people
don't know about it and,secondly, it's usually available
only to people who can affordit.
So the threshold is quite highto access it in the first place.
And one of the criticisms that'smade of the current law and I
think a perfectly valid one isthat children should be entitled
(10:07):
to the same financial provisionand rights, irrespective of
whether their parents aremarried or not.
But here we are in 2024 and thereality, I feel, is that
children of married parents tendto be much better off
financially at the end of arelationship than those of
(10:29):
unmarried parents, and I saythat that's completely wrong.
Having said all of that, tamsin, in a situation the example
that you provided where thereare children, in that situation,
if it's affordable, it ispossible for a property to be
held for the children to live inwhile they are growing up, um,
(10:55):
but it is only for a specificperiod of time.
So it could be until, um thechildren are 16 that there would
be all finished their full-timesecondary education.
It is dependent on the motherdoing all that she can to
support the situation, whichwill probably mean having to
work and pay towards themortgage as much that period.
(11:21):
Then, based on the law, thenthat property will go back to
the division that I explained atthe beginning, which is based
on the title deeds, unless youcan prove intentions were
different to hold the propertyin a different way.
So what you find there inpretty much all instances is
(11:44):
that where the woman becomesolder and the children are older
, she has very little, verylimited, if rights at all at
that stage and and that's thethe predicament that women find
themselves in that situation.
And so, in contrast to whathappens when you're married,
(12:06):
there is no acknowledgement ofthe contributions that a woman
would have made as a mother andin terms of looking after the
home.
And that's essentially thesituation that women sometimes
find themselves in when they goto see solicitors Resolution.
(12:28):
Our national organisation hasrun a series of member surveys
on this and has found that innearly all cases, lawyers found
that they found themselves insituations where there was
nothing they could do to helptheir clients when they were in
that situation it's sofrustrating and and upsetting,
isn't it?
Tamsin Caine (12:47):
because you've got a client who comes in and
thinks well, I must be entitledto something, I've been
financially contributing, and soit feels to me, and I'm sure to
you, that something needs tochange.
And there are jurisdictionsthroughout the globe who do have
(13:11):
different cohabitation laws,and my understanding is that
we're looking at a couple ofthose to try and persuade our
government to to make somechanges to cohabitation laws.
Um, is that that's the case?
I've understood that right.
Yeah yeah.
Graeme Fraser (13:32):
So just to break that down a little bit, at the
point that we're recording this,we're we're at the start of a
new government and a change ofpolitical party running that
government and in the labourmanifesto there was a commitment
to achieve better protectionsfor cohabiting couples and I
think the wording wasspecifically towards improving
(13:55):
rights for women.
Now we're not quite clear whatthat means yet and I believe
there will be discussions withthe new government about what
that means and we will see howthat unfolds in the first
hundred days of any newgovernment where there's been a
change of political party,there's obviously a lot of
change anyway.
So let's wait and see whathappens on that.
(14:18):
Yeah, fingers crossed.
However, in terms of what'shappened across the globe, as it
were, there are two main typesof model that exist, and the
first model is called adifference model and that exists
actually within the BritishIsles, in Scotland and Ireland,
(14:40):
particularly in some of theCommonwealth countries, whereby
couples are getting the samerights or very similar rights to
(15:04):
those of married couples aftera certain period of time or if
they've had children.
So those are the two models.
Essentially, I think they'recalled either the difference
model or the de facto model.
Those are the two main types ofmodels that operate across the
globe and we have looked atthose comparative cases in order
(15:32):
to inform us what might workhere.
And that's been the subject ofsome research and it's the
subject of some discussion andit's probably the subject of
some policy consideration aswell.
Tamsin Caine (15:46):
Is there a I don't know consensus feels like the
wrong word, but a preferencebetween those models that we see
elsewhere in the world that wemight feel was more appropriate
for the UK, or one that we'recertainly a resolution are going
(16:08):
to the government and saying wethink this is the right
solution.
Graeme Fraser (16:14):
Well, I think the answer is there's several
different aspects to that answer.
I think over time, over thelast 40 years, which is the
period since which Resolutionhas been campaigning, there was
a case called Burns and Burns in1983, which basically was the
(16:34):
example that you were talkingabout at the beginning, which is
a woman finding herself at theend of a relationship with no
rights at all.
And I think that over manyyears, certainly in this country
, there have been a series ofarguments for the difference
model, and that was very clearlythe case in terms of the
(16:56):
recommendations made by the LawCommission in 2007.
And the Law Commission is setup to suggest new laws to the
government, and that was on thebasis of a limited scheme, but
with a wider discretion.
So a similar discretion, but ona more limited basis, to what
(17:17):
would happen on divorce in thiscountry.
But, on the other hand, therehave been other countries where
this law has worked quite well,and, in particular, australia
and New Zealand.
I'm not saying it's perfect.
There were criticisms of that,as there were criticisms of any
law, but the argument by thosewho would like to see marriage
(17:39):
like rights is that it's likelyto be easier to implement and
the law is likely to be clearerand probably a bit more
accessible.
The issue, however, is probablyone of policy, which is is it
right to give people who havenot chosen to marry
(18:01):
automatically the same rightsafter a period of time, or does
the decision to marry make adecision, make a difference?
Because that's a consciousdecision, and there are certain
things about marriage that Ithink people do understand At a
(18:22):
basic level.
People understand that marriagemeans something different in law
, so is it right to extend that,and what would work best for
this country as opposed to whatworks elsewhere, because each
country has a slightly differentculture and a different
approach to how they want theirlaws to be run.
The other thing that's beenrunning through the law for many
(18:45):
years terms in is this ideathat families want to make
decisions for themselves aboutwhat happens in their future.
So when people get marriedalthough if we were having this
discussion 20 years ago, wewould then be talking about, oh,
(19:06):
nuptial agreements that neverhappens in England, that's just
something that happens inHollywood Well, nowadays,
nowadays, nuptial agreements arevery common, so the law
generally does respect theindependence of people to make
decisions about what happenswhen their relationship comes to
(19:26):
an end.
So one of the queries aboutintroducing new law is how much
respect would be given to thatindependence as to what people
want to do.
Tamsin Caine (19:37):
Crikey, it's tricky, isn't it?
I mean, you've got feeling.
My gut feeling kind of feelslike, well, if you've lived
together for a certain amount oftime, it feels right to have
similar rights as a marriedcouple.
However, there is the pointthat you say that you might
almost fall into that, whereasif you, if you marry or enter
(20:01):
into civil partnership, you aremaking a a firm decision to
enter into that as a partnershipand and kind of financially
link yourself to another person.
So that does that feel In termsof the difference model, and I
feel like this is going to beperhaps really complicated and
(20:22):
potentially beyond the scope.
But what differences does thedifference model have to what
the rights are of a marriedcouple or a civil partnership?
Graeme Fraser (20:37):
Well, the difference model is based on
several elements.
First of all, you have to beeligible in order to qualify on
the difference model.
And eligibility either means,under the Law Commission model
and some of the proposals thatResolution has made over the
years, that would meanautomatically having children it
(21:00):
doesn't mean that in some othercountries but it also means
being in a recognized cohabitingrelationship for several years,
and there have been a number ofideas about that, whether it
should be two, which reflectslaws that are available to
inhabitants on inheritancelegislation, or it could be
(21:23):
three years, which is more basedon what happens under children
law, or it could be five yearsto allow a longer period for
eligibility.
But that's one of the startingpoints.
And then, under the differencemodel, there is really a
question of looking for somesort of qualifying contribution
(21:45):
having been made to therelationship, which may be an
active contribution or it mayhave been something that was a
sacrifice that was made, what Isuppose we would term and I'm
sorry, I don't want to get tootechnical, but it's what's
called relationship.
It's called relationshipgenerated disadvantage.
(22:06):
So as a result of being in therelationship, you may have given
up career opportunities or youmay have made active
contributions the sort ofcontributions you were talking
about right at the beginning ofthis discussion to looking after
children or making activecontributions to the family home
(22:29):
but they're not actuallycontributions that are ones that
add value to the property orshow that you are a property
owner what we call thebeneficial ownership.
So it's recognising thosecontributions in a certain way,
and I think the model that wesee where that's happened most
closely to us is in Scotland,and that was actually the model
(22:53):
that the government wanted tolook at following the Law
Commission report back in 2007.
Tamsin Caine (23:01):
2007.
Okay, so I guess therelationship disadvantage can't
remember what you called itsomething fancy would be like if
, if the one of the partners hada job in germany and and the
whole, then the couple movedlock back and and barrel to
Germany for a couple of years.
(23:21):
That would potentially be theexample of of that sort of thing
, would it?
Graeme Fraser (23:27):
Yeah, I mean it's giving up, it's making
sacrifices in order to possiblyit could be supporting the.
I used to use the gender ofmale and female, but of course
we know, um, that actually it'sa lot more complex than that.
Uh terms in, because there aremany men who, uh, many men who
(23:52):
actually now stay at home aswell.
I suppose we call house husbandand also we have part-time
working and shift working, sopeople work in many different
ways and um in in in the 21stcentury.
But but essentially, if we lookat a more traditional model,
then, um, mothers who gave uptheir career possibly followed
(24:16):
the father um gave up.
They sometimes they actuallysell their property, but they
these aren't situations actually, perhaps where the father is
more aware, but they're not butthey're not being allowed to
invest their share in thefather's property, so they don't
have anything to show for itand they may actually have spent
(24:37):
that money, but it's somethingthat can be that can be tracked,
but it's something that can bethat can be tracked.
And the point is that, havingbeen able to show those
contributions or sort of orsacrifices or any disadvantage
suffered, that you can then haveaccess to the menu of remedies
available under financialremedies on divorce, which
(25:01):
allows a much more flexible wayof giving financial provision.
So, for example, what we don'thave now is it's not possible to
share pensions if you'reunmarried, and also there are
limits on what we call a carer'sallowance, which enables
(25:24):
mothers to go back to work.
That's not really fullydeveloped.
And also there would be anopportunity under the new law to
pay what's called maintenanceor periodical payments, possibly
for a short amount of time,which allows women in those
situations to get back on theirfeet and is often very helpful
in marriages, particularly shortmarriages.
(25:47):
So it's really allowingflexibility in the law to
provide with these situations.
And what I say about all of thisis that it's not about
encouraging us to have a wholeload of new cases in the law
courts.
That's not what we're talkingabout at all.
Obviously, there will be testcases, as there would be on any
(26:09):
new law, but it's aboutencouraging the law to grow in a
way that works for families,which means that when we look to
settle our cases, they're mucheasier to.
So if you go through mediationor collaborative law or these
types of models, cases that havefairer laws are easier to
(26:30):
settle and actually familylawyers do settle most of their
cases.
The cases that we can't settleare because the law is hard, and
then you end up with familiesnot actually having a remedy,
either because they couldn'taccess it in the first place or
there simply isn't somethingfair to do.
But then you're relying on thecouple itself to agree to enter
(26:53):
into something that's fair, butit doesn't say that in the law.
So it's much better for the lawto say what is fair, so that we
can reach those solutions sure,I mean that that makes complete
sense.
Tamsin Caine (27:06):
My, um, my question so we, um, we both
attended and you took part in uma debate on on this very
subject, um, a couple of monthsago, um, and my, when I was
thinking about it before theevent, and I was thinking about
what, what do I feel about this?
How, what questions have I got?
(27:28):
My overriding question, as acomplete novice and not as a
lawyer, was how how does do newlaws, how are they going to
apply to couples who are in arelationship together, as
opposed to people who know eachother buying together, so you
(27:50):
and me buying together, mebuying with my sister, you know
a couple of friends buyingtogether.
How how do we go aboutestablishing there's a
relationship there as opposed toit's a, it's a friendship,
buying a property together?
Because you can't really can't,mix those things up, can you?
Graeme Fraser (28:09):
because the rights then become very confused
well, I think you've made avery good point, um, and it's
certainly if.
If we do see new legislationbeing debated in Parliament, I
think the point that you've madewill come up, which is that
people will say well, if you'regoing to have new legislation
(28:31):
for people living together in arelationship, why can't that
extend to friends or people in asibling relationship or
something like that?
I do think that we are lookingat something fairly clear here
that these are people who aren'tmarried but live together as
(28:56):
though they are married withoutthe formality of marriage,
without the formality ofmarriage.
So I personally think that itis necessary for that couple to
be in an intimate relationship.
Not everybody agrees with that,but I think that's hugely
relevant to it.
But I think living in the samespace, living in the same
(29:18):
property, being in thatrelationship and having usually
having some financialinterdependence between them are
clear markers, and so there's aparallel to be drawn to being
married.
I personally think that thoseother categories would probably
(29:42):
fall more under property law,but for anybody who wants to buy
a property, there is always anoption to enter something called
a declaration of trust, whichclearly sets out how you own
that property, and you can alsoenter into an agreement and we
call them cohabitationagreements, um.
(30:03):
I've seen them called familylife agreements, um.
But you can.
You can decide within thoseagreements how you want to
regulate um, how the householdis run, how you may own property
in the future, what you decideto do on death and what you
decide to do in the event of abreakup.
(30:23):
And I don't think, and thatwould certainly still be
possible within those categories, obviously the relationship
would be different.
But you can.
You can regulate those and, infact, some ways, it's easier to
regulate those situationsbecause it's more, I suppose,
more of a business-likerelationship rather than a
(30:44):
family-type relationship, and Ithink the existing law is better
suited to people in abusiness-type relationship, for
example, tamsin, a couple ormaybe four people owning a guest
house or a commercial property,and that really was what this
property law that we currentlyapply to people living together
(31:08):
is better suited for, and thelaws are slightly differently
applied.
But I do think there's adistinction.
I do think there's aconversation to be had and I
think it will be had, but what Iwould say is the number of
people who are affected at themoment is so great that we just
can't, we can't ignore it and weknow from the demographics, the
recent censuses, that it's nowone in five adults who are in a
(31:33):
relationship are cohabiting, andI just say that we cannot
ignore 20% of the population.
It is actually the biggestpriority in terms of new family
law is to bring in law thatprotects those people.
Tamsin Caine (31:49):
I think you're absolutely right.
It's amazing that it hasn'thappened yet and let's hope that
currently the government get onto this.
But, as you say, they've got alot of things on at the moment.
But let's hope that they stickwith the terms of their
manifesto and start making somechanges.
We're coming to the end of ourtime together.
(32:10):
Is there anything you'd like toadd or anything that you think
that I should have asked about?
That we haven't covered.
Graeme Fraser (32:18):
I think the thing to emphasise is that the people
who are getting together sothey're buying a property
together or maybe they are inrelationship difficulties it's
the importance of getting adviceas soon as possible, and that's
probably going to work best interms of a combination of advice
.
So you're going to need advicefrom your legal advisor and try
(32:42):
and get that advice quickly.
Don't rely on the internet,please, because because we
provide bespoke advice to yoursituation and everybody's family
is different and everysituation is different, so do
get specialist advice and alsobe aware that we link up with
(33:03):
different services, so sometimesit's counsellors or or
relationship coaches, I think,as we call them and and also you
know, it's a whole myriad ofservices.
It's not usually one person ontheir own.
So getting that advice earlyreally makes a difference, and I
(33:24):
think, in terms of the law,what a lot of people say about
this was well, it should beobvious that if you're not
married, you don't have rights.
If you want to get rights, getmarried.
Actually, what it's about isawareness, so being aware of
what the law is now, but alsohaving that with modernised law.
(33:47):
So what we need to do goingforward is make sure that we
have laws that work for allfamilies, irrespective of
whether they're married orunmarried not a subject of this
discussion but we should alwaysbe reviewing our laws to see if
they work and, at the same time,making sure that the public are
(34:07):
aware what the law is as well.
So we've got a dual role and Ithink it's really anybody
working within family law hasthat responsibility and making
sure that we can clearlycommunicate to people what the
law actually is, what theirrights are and what they can do
about it and what they should bedoing about it.
(34:28):
And I think if they think inthose terms, then you're really
protecting yourself in thefuture and informing yourself.
And you might actually have,because there are plenty of
people who aren't breaking up,who are still concerned about it
.
You may just have a little bitof clarity going forward,
because one of the worstsituations in life is, um,
(34:48):
unfortunately, when people dobreak up.
It's probably the secondbiggest trauma after death.
So instead of having thatsituation unearth itself in a
really unpleasant and untimelyway and then finding out the law
doesn't work very well, takesteps that you need to you know
quite early on, so you know,make a will.
(35:08):
Think about having acohabitation agreement, think
about having a declaration oftrust.
Keep one eye out for when thelaw is changing.
You know, I don't think the lawfamily law doesn't change
particularly quickly in thiscountry and then, as a result of
that, people often think thelaw is different to what
actually what it actually is.
(35:30):
So getting really clear, um,reliable advice and getting that
with all the services that areavailable is really the best
thing you can do in that, inthis situation no, absolutely
spot on.
Tamsin Caine (35:44):
And and I know lots of people who listen to
this podcast are coming out of amarriage or a civil partnership
and thinking about enteringinto another one and saying,
well, I'm never getting marriedagain and not understanding the
implications of that, of thatcohabitation and and I think you
think a cohabitation agreementand getting legal advice is
(36:07):
absolutely paramount up front ifyou're entering into a
relationship that's new, becauseyou don't want to come out of
that and find that you're in adifferent position than the one
you thought you were.
Graham, thank you so much forall your um wise words today and
it's been great to speak to you.
Thank you for joining me.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Thank you times in hi , and I hope you enjoyed that
episode of the smart divorcepodcast.
If you would like to get intouch, please have a look in the
show notes for our details orgo on to the website,
wwwsmartdivorcecouk.
Also, if you are listening onapple podcasts or on spotify and
(36:52):
you wouldn't mind leaving us alovely five-star review, that
would be fantastic.
I know that lots of ourlisteners are finding this is
incredibly helpful in theirjourney through separation,
divorce and dissolving a civilpartnership.
Also, if you would like somefurther support, we do have a
Facebook group now.
(37:12):
It's called Separation, divorceand Dissolution UK.
Please do go on to Facebook,search up the group and we'd be
delighted to have you join us,and the one thing I would say is
do please answer theirmembership questions.
Okay, have a great day and takecare.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!