GF pushing proposal

[Wakeup]

It is kind of strange, isn't it? It's like they simply shifted the "big decision" from whether to get formally married or not to whether to live together or not. It's kind of insane that any two people living together for over 2 years would be considered as good as married, legally speaking. What if two people don't want to share their finances etc. for the long term? What if they just want to live together? I think the best option would be that two people who live together as a couple should have the option of being legally considered as good as married, but it shouldn't be forced unto them. They should be the ones to decide.

Its set up to protect both people in the union Equal Rights and all. (just like marriage is) If the two involved just want to split without going to court and fighting over the assets and liabilities, then just like a non-contested divorce, it can be arranged ammicably, papers filed, and done.
The common law situation in Canada is EXACTLY why I always defend it as being just as much committed as any married couple would be. You really have to think about who you're shacking up with, what their pre-livein assets/liabilities are, responsibility for any children coming in, BEFORE you shack up. It's not just for reasons of convenience and for those still in the honeymoon period only to find out post-HM Period... that they're wanting "50 Ways To Leave Your Lover."

[IndiReloaded]

It is kind of strange, isn't it? It's like they simply shifted the "big decision" from whether to get formally married or not to whether to live together or not.

Quite right. Who is "they" to make such a decision about the personal lives of citizens?

I think the best option would be that two people who live together as a couple should have the option of being legally considered as good as married, but it shouldn't be forced unto them. They should be the ones to decide.

In the end, a couple need not admit to anything. I suppose it becomes contentious only when 1 partner wants to benefit from the other... same lesson - be careful who you choose to marry, or live with.

[HeartIsAching]

That is not what it looks like to me. "Suit for proof of marriage" sounds like a some sort of court hearing where evidence is presented to prove you were married. The findings of said hearing are then used to make an "evidentiary presumption", a presumption based on evidence presented, at the suit where one party is going after the other's assets.

Either way it doesn't really matter. The first prong of the test is that you have to agree to be married, and that is light years ahead of what Canada is doing.

Smackie, that is ****ing insane. People are choosing not to be traditionally married, but the government is forcing it on them anyway. INSANE. If you want marriage benefits, get MARRIED! Your prenup comment makes no sense...get a prenup for what? Just for living together?

Then you should work on your reading comprehension skills.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

Then you should work on your reading comprehension skills.

I'm right. I haven't been able to find anything on what a suit for proof of marriage is, but I am right about evidentiary presumption. Are you a lawyer? I would love for you to point me to some documentation that says otherwise.

How is one supposed to comprehend "Suit for proof of marriage"? Just reading the words should lead one to believe it is a suit where one seeks to prove marriage. Is that not the essence of reading comprehension? Anyway, I'm gonna give my lawyer a call and see what he's got to say about it.

[Wakeup]

In Canada the question is asked (and therefore proven) on our Income Tax Returns:

There are Five categories for relationship status:

Single
Divorced
Married
Separated
Common-law.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

In Canada the question is asked (and therefore proven) on our Income Tax Returns:

There are Five categories for relationship status:

Single
Divorced
Married
Separated
Common-law.

What if one person puts single and the other puts Common-law on all their returns?

I do not see how this law protects both people at all. I don't see how it protects anyone.

[smackie9]

I claim single anyways.....we don't have any dependents so it really doesn't matter.

[Wakeup]

What you claim isn't what I'm talking about. It's the top of the Income Tax form about you and your status. I submit my income tax form based on single income. My status with my husband (in the about you section) has been "Single" then "Common-Law" then "Married."

What if one person puts single and the other puts Common-law on all their returns?

I do not see how this law protects both people at all. I don't see how it protects anyone.

This happens when people are trying to bilk the system. For instace, we knew a couple who claimed Separated because he made too much money and owed a bundle in taxes. He had to prove where he lived now and when he couldn't, (no bills in his name, no lease in his name etc) he had to pay a fine and all the taxes he currently was owing. Rev Cda then did a 7 year audit on him and they found tons more that he couldn't claim and they hit him with interest plus what was oweing.

Social Insurance numbers are tied in with the other partner. If one claims single relationship status while the other claims Common-law status, with that person then the returns would be red flagged and then the investigations would start. For instance if Mr. Smackie claimed to be living common law with Miss Smackie and she said she was living "single" then those two returns would be red flagged.

It's always prudent to make sure both of you are on title to a home, on a lease, on more then one utility bill. Its really the only way you can prove you have been living together as a couple and not just a tenant in the home of the one on title. If someone refuses to put you on title or put your name on the utility bills that you are helping to pay, well then that would be a good reason to think really hard at what you're doing.

BTW: Backup: The division of property would be based on what was made together after the two year mark. So, if Miss Smackie came into the relationship with owning her home (and he moved into it). Then the division would be based on the equity built on that home since the day they became legally common law tied together... NOT on the entire value of that home.

[basilandthyme]

Speaking of social security and tax and trying to rip off the system.....having the state recognise defacto works in their favour when balancing their budget.

As you know I'm a carer. As such, I'm entitled to a sliding scale of state benefit because my ability to work is so limited. If I was single, I'd get quite a substantial amount, but as the defacto partner of a high income earner I get the minimum.

Without the defacto recognition, I could be receiving a substantial state benefits while my husband supports us on a three figure salary. I don't see that it's fair for wealthier people to claim singledom and take money from the pot when others who are much more needy can use it.

[basilandthyme]

BTW: Backup: The division of property would be based on what was made together after the two year mark. So, if Miss Smackie came into the relationship with owning her home (and he moved into it). Then the division would be based on the equity built on that home since the day they became legally common law tied together... NOT on the entire value of that home.

I wonder if that's the same here. If I ever had to start over (heaven forbid) I mightn't need to be so adamant about a pre-nup before living with someone.

[Wakeup]

Well, you'd still loose a good chuck of the equity in your property that would have been all yours so whether or not a prenup would be necessary is something for your lawyer to advice, I supose.

There are several pre-nups that haven't held up in court in the USA so I don't think even those are as good as they're sworn out to be. It is very important that the one agreeing to the prenup has had their own separate legal respresentation, that the lawyers do their back and forths regarding changes to be denyed or accepted by both parties etc. so that a judge wouldn't find that the person signing the prenup was somehow taken advantage of because they didn't have adequate legal representation.

[basilandthyme]

There are several pre-nups that haven't held up in court in the USA so I don't think even those are as good as they're sworn out to be. It is very important that the one agreeing to the prenup has had their own separate legal respresentation, that the lawyers do their back and forths regarding changes to be denyed or accepted by both parties etc. so that a judge wouldn't find that the person signing the prenup was somehow taken advantage of because they didn't have adequate legal representation.

Yeah, I think I read about that here. Things like not having someone sign under duress etc.

[Wakeup]

Speaking of social security and tax and trying to rip off the system.....having the state recognise defacto works in their favour when balancing their budget.

As you know I'm a carer. As such, I'm entitled to a sliding scale of state benefit because my ability to work is so limited. If I was single, I'd get quite a substantial amount, but as the defacto partner of a high income earner I get the minimum.

Without the defacto recognition, I could be receiving a substantial state benefits while my husband supports us on a three figure salary. I don't see that it's fair for wealthier people to claim singledom and take money from the pot when others who are much more needy can use it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, BandT? I pay a sustantial amount of taxes based on my income not on our marital status... as does my husband.

[smackie9]

Oh GOOD! everything is in my name so I guess I still get to keep my house....whewww!

[smackie9]

btw the law is differnt here in BC....division of assets after separation is 50/50 in most cases.