The Concept of Law Marriage - Case Study Example

Common Law Relation and Co-Ownership There is no such thing as a common law marriage within the legal context. This simply means to say that two people may live together as husband and wife. In the eyes of the law, however, they are not husband and wife. This means that when a man and a woman live together, neither one can claim a right or a set of rights as the legal spouse of the other, including any that pertains to inheritance or succession. Many people erroneously have the conception to the contrary, that is, they believe that those living in as couples without the benefit of marriage have the same status concerning rights as those who are legally married. (Common-law marriage rights 'a myth'. 15 July 2004. guardian.uk. [internet]). In view of this common law principle, Nina and Liam in the case at bar are both owners of the house in question. As such, the two have interests in the property. The issue that has to be addressed next is the extent of their stake in the realty. When two or more individuals own a property, the same either may be under joint tenancy or may be held by the said persons as tenants in common. In the former, everyone owns all of the property and when a party dies, the whole estate is transferred to the surviving owner. On the other hand, in the case of tenants in common, each of the proprietors owns a specific portion of the realty. The system of joint tenancy is usually what is observed between married couples while those living in as partners outside of wedlock follow the arrangement for tenants in common. (Severing a Joint Tenancy. law-bytes. swarb.co.uk. [internet]). What then is the relationship that prevails between Nina and Liam over the house Is it that they are joint tenants or are they tenants in common It has to be importantly noted that the given circumstances are silent as to whether they have come into some agreement on what system to adopt except that they had talked about the property being equally theirs. Of the same significance is the fact that it was solely Nina who purchased the asset as a freehold which means that she is the absolute owner in fee simple. (Freehold Meaning and Definition. thinkexist.com, [internet]). The heirs and successors of Liam will be at a disadvantage in a joint tenancy set-up because if he dies, everything in the real estate goes to Nina as the latter will have the so-called right of survivorship. It also will still be disadvantageous to Liam in the event that Nina dies because of one peculiarity of the situation. The recorded owner is Nina and Liam will have to prove the ownership union. What if they are together as owners of the house in the concept of tenants in common In the latter case, each of them, as well as those who will inherit or succeed from them, will be entitled to his or her equitable share upon the demise of the other. In essence, it would be best for Liam to have the terms clearly defined with Nina by serving a written notice unto her to that effect. Things will be fine if Nina readily accepts the proposal of Liam. However, if and when it becomes necessary, a court action may be possible in order to delineate the shares of the parties and to clarify their equitable interests and have the same unequivocally declared to avoid any future conflict or controversy. Going back to the fact that the parties were not explicit as to the ownership relation that would bind them, this has to be resolved in accordance with a reference to judicial pronouncements which take into account the evidence at hand and the surrounding circumstances. In the case of Stack v. Dowden, the House of Lords resolved the controversy with a fair, logical and wise verdict. It was about a couple in cohabitation without the benefit of marriage but who however registered their purchased property. They later on actually separated. The distinguished Lord Hope of Craighead opined that a test must be had as to whether the interests of the parties were equal or not in the joint ownership. This simply shows that the joint ownership system may still be applied in incidents where the partners are not married as demonstrated by the fact that the case was entertained, deliberated on and passed upon by the House of Lords. In that regard, it was further adjudged that, consistent with previous decisions, the burden of proving that beneficial interests are equal was upon the party who claimed otherwise. This was affirmed and concurred to by Baroness Hale who led in coming out with of the final result. (Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17. Family Law Week. [internet]). Therefore, it will not always follow that the community of joint ownership will not operate or be presumed when the parties involved are unmarried live-in couples. The determination will depend on the attendant facts. From the viewpoint of equity, Nina and Liam have to be considered as co-owners of whatever contributions they made for the acquisition of the property. Regarding the participation of Jonathan in the case, Liam has to consider this as a source of complication later on. If there is a way by which Nina can reimburse him (Liam) of whatever amount he gave to her for the payment of the mortgage on the house, that will be a better alternative to recoup his resources, that is, rather than just simply making known his interest in the property. That reimbursement decision will be a more practical option particularly because Jonathan will also possibly assert his rights in the property as co-owner or tenant in common for his work or industry for the improvement of the estate which can be quantified into money value. Allowing a scenario where there will be the three of them rather than only the supposed two (Liam and Nina) will just lead into a more complex set-up. Jonathan is actually in the same level as Liam except maybe for the amount of contribution. Accordingly, he can prospectively have a legal basis in laying claim for his equitable interests in the property. Liam therefore has legal and equitable interests in the property as joint owner. As such, he is entitled to whatever proportionately belongs to him as may be proven by the amount he gave to Nina as his contributions to the payment of the mortgage on the house. Ironically, Jonathan has such the same right in equity differing only in the amount or proportion of share. Civil Partnership Same-sex relationship was a taboo before. That was a long time ago. It no longer is. It was once a very serious political item and people involved in gay and lesbian liaisons and those who subscribed to the idea were mostly condemned by those who believed they were more upright, citing, among others, the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah which God allegedly destroyed for the damned sin. (Why did God destroy Sodom and Gamorrah [internet]). In so short a time, the hatred and the anger toward these supposed castaways subsided. (Farah, Joseph. Same-sex marriage through history. November 17, 2009. WorldNetDaily. [internet].). And these will possibly become total things of the past within the next few years. With the passage of laws already allowing same-sex marriages, even governments of many jurisdictions today have acknowledged the rights of these members of the so-called third sex. In the United Kingdom, of recent development has been the legislated Civil Partnership Act 2004 which is precisely to govern the relationship between persons who are tied under the union of a same-sex marriage. (Civil Partnership Act 2004. OPSI. Office of Public Sector Information. [internet]). The opening introduction readily declares the act as being one for civil partners or for people of the same sex in a relationship. The law defines and enumerates the rights and obligations of the partners including those which relate to property as mainly set forth in Chapter 3 aptly entitled Property and Financial Arrangements under Part 2 for England and Wales. Similar chapters are provided for appurtenant to civil partnerships in Scotland (Part 3), in Northern Ireland (Part 4), and those formed and/or dissolved overseas (Part 5). The new legislation is significant owing to the fact that same-sex relations are now admittedly rampant or widespread not only in the United Kingdom. Lesbians and gays living together as married couples are now universally all over, not to mention those who are so in unions similar to common law live-in engagements. In view of the magnitude of the said relations, the rights and responsibilities of the parties must better be laid down in a comprehensive and exhaustive codified legislation. Among others, Civil Partnership Act 2004 has specific provisions on the contributions of the partners to the union, the extent of their interests, possession and control of money and property, assurance policies, annulment and dissolution of the partnership, disposal of properties and tort actions between the parties. In effect, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is an exactly new family law component. The Research Methods The research methods employed in the two topics discussed above were strenuous. The primary reason was that there were not enough guides for case law sources and references. As a matter of fact, there was none at all, that is, even one just to lead the researcher to a starting point. The big help came from the keywords. For the assignment on the joint ownership of common-law or live-in partners, the research proponent had to go to the web links or internet materials which suggested issues about common-law cohabitation. Under the latter, related and allied subject matters cropped up naturally, so to speak. The methodology had multiple effects in the sourcing of more reading materials relevant to the essay and to how the same could be properly organized and drafted. Thus, cohabitation connected to cohabitation arrangements. The latter topic led to the property arrangements of couples who live as husband and wife without being legally married. The property arrangements would lead to items of dispute or controversy, and so on and so forth. In the end, one case law was sourced out to be of vital importance to the assigned piece. The fact that there is actually no law on the property relations between live-in partners made more difficult the research efforts. For example, there is no such statute enabling or regulating the rights and obligations between persons who cohabit without the blessings of the legal requirements being complied with. This was much more so anent their property relations. In fact, there appears to be an immediate need now for a codified law for the purpose just as what was done in the case of gays and lesbians who now have the Civil Partnership Act 2004. It came as a surprise why a similar law is not available to common law partners who belong to opposite sexes when there is one for same-sex unions, particularly considering that the said opposite sex pairs were more ancient in incidence than same-sex relationships. At any rate, it is humbly believed that the accomplishment has been researched well, the materials were carefully studied and analyzed, and the paper was organized such as to make it easy for the readers to comprehend or understand the whole discussion. The same procedures were done for the topic on same-sex partnerships although it was interesting to observe that this latter subject is wider in range as to the availability of research materials. There was also more ease in linking the keywords to more related keywords owing possibly to the fact that there is generally more curiosity hinged on gays and lesbians. Common law relations were never made political issues. On the other hand, there had been, and there still are, so much political wrangling on same-sex marriages or unions. Another reason for convenience in the research on same-sex relationships, with particular reference to those in the United Kingdom, is that there is the new law regarding the same, that is, the Civil Partnership Act 2004. It may be confessed though that the statute being a recent development, there are not so much court cases yet to establish precedents for purposes of referral. References (All sources were from the Web / Internet) Civil Partnership Act 2004. OPSI. Office of Public Sector Information. [internet] Accessed January 13, 2010. Available at: < http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040033_en_1#Legislation-Preamble Common-law marriage rights 'a myth'. 15 July 2004. guardian.uk. [internet] Accessed January 13, 2010. Available at: Farah, Joseph. Same-sex marriage through history. November 17, 2009. WorldNetDaily. [internet]. Accessed January 13, 2010. Available at: Freehold Meaning and Definition. thinkexist.com, [internet] Accessed January 13, 2010. Available at: Severing a Joint Tenancy. law-bytes. swarb.co.uk. [internet]. Accessed January 13, 2010. Available at: http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/cvrSeverJT.shtml Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17. Family Law Week. [internet] Accessed January 13, 2010. Available at: ) Why did God destroy Sodom and Gamorrah [internet] Accessed January 13, 2010. Available at: Read More