It's unfortunate the way that sexual relationships are intertwined with finances. Gone are the days where women have little/no earning opportunities.
People should be allowed to keep finances separated unless explicitly deciding otherwise.
People should be allowed to keep finances separated unless explicitly deciding otherwise.
Not to say your statement is invalid or that it's time for a shift, just a reminder that this is a well trodden field.
The situation now is that divorce and childlessness are common and people are adapting accordingly.
Personally, I think it's sad. Long-distance relationships don't work. Yet, as I see it, short-distance relationships do work, though a period of adjustment may be required.
Medium-distance relationships are stuck in the middle!
And, to put a cynical hat on for a moment, the powers-that-be may be just fine with this. They want people isolated in separate dwellings for purposes of taxation, property pricing, general conformity to their agendas, etc.
I don't think that holds as a blanket statement. (I have multiple counterexamples in my immediate circle, at least. Some of them on the decades scale)
Is there specific evidence, or is this simply an assumption you're making?
Of course, relying on the default cultural script for local relationships often falls down as well when it turns out that you disagree about the details. But we accept that relationships fail all the time, and don't tend to say "local relationships don't work" just because many of them fail. :D
To be clear, I'm not saying "GP is wrong" - I was genuinely curious if maybe they had some data/studies on the subject, since all I have are personal observations, and I'm curious about the issue. I.e. How much harder are LDRs?
the Netherlands recently passed legislation that changed the default marriage agreement to no longer have the shared ownership stipulation.
And even then, that's only one option (marriage, that is); there is nobody (except maybe family, church, etc) forcing anyone to marry. There's other options as well.
We also have only recently legalized prenups.
Oh, and living wills are very very limited too. ..so yeah...
I don't know if it's enough for one partner to claim marriage to the other, but if they both claim it the marriage is valid.
I have no idea what happens if two non-romantic roomates buy a couch together, and one of them moves out though.
> I have no idea what happens if two non-romantic roomates buy a couch together, and one of them moves out though.
I'd certainly hope the couch would fall under the $10,000 limit for small claims.
Obviously designed to protect the rights of people in this situation long term, it's also rather frightening.
Or, at least this is what I've been told, I don't speak Swedish enough to read the relevant law myself but it's been corroborated by enough people I trust.
So if X owns a home, then meets Y and they both start living in X's home, if they split up X will still own all of it. However if X buys a home for X and Y to live in, then it doesn't matter that Y didn't pay anything the home is still owned 50/50 according to Sambolagen. X can avoid this by making a written statement that the home belongs to X signed by Y.
because automatically tying personal and romantic relationships and property arrangements together seems odd to people who want to keep them apart, just like some people might not want to have any relationship with their family any more and don't want to fiscally depend on them, or the other way around.
It seems archaic to me to have some sort of parallel informal and customary law based on kinship that you're automatically opted into.
I looked this up and it's not true. If there are no explicit documents, the court will interpret what the intention of the couple were in terms of ownership. If the property is in one person's name, that person tends to keep the property. If the property is put in both names then it is split 50/50.
My statement of 6 months is incorrect: it is two years of cohabitation, unless there is a child, or other circumstances.
In regards to splitting assets, there is no hard and fast rule: meaning it could slice either way.
It’s complicated because even prenups can be overturned if one partner experiences regret and the courts decide the prenup wasn’t “fair”.
The law is surprising enough to enough people that they’re looking at changing it.
I suppose that depends on which side of the financial scales you are on.