The trap of common-law marriage: unemployed and won't leave the flat

The economic trap of common-law marriage: she doesn't work and won't leave

Living with someone for two years without income can legally equate the situation to a marriage. The case illustrates it perfectly: a man in his thirties, owner of the home and the mortgage, tries to separate from his common-law partner, who neither studies nor works, refuses to leave the flat and threatens to call the 016 hotline. What seemed like a sentimental breakup has turned into a first-rate property problem.

Two years of living together and the common-law couple resembles marriage

The fact that changes the rules: according to those who have gone through the same process, two years under the same roof or a child in common turn the common-law couple into a legal equivalent of marriage. An affected man says he already pays alimony to his ex common-law partner. If the home is considered the couple's habitual residence, the protection of the cohabitant exceeds that of a tenant. The mortgage is in his name, but that does not make him absolute owner while she resides there.

Eviction for precarious possession: the route that doesn't work for common-law couples

The express eviction mechanism that works with occupants without a contract – the verbal trial for precarious possession against whoever occupies without title – clashes with an obstacle: when the occupant has been the owner's common-law partner, courts tend to consider it a habitual residence. The eviction for precarious possession has no path. The Civil Procedure Act requires proving ownership title and the lack of a contract, but the prior affective cohabitation introduces a nuance that the procedure does not resolve.

The threat of 016: pressure and need for evidence

The conflictive knot is in the threat to call the hotline against gender violence. The owner faces not only a housing problem, but also a possible procedure for violence. The recurring recommendation is to record all conversations – messages and audio – and keep any documentary evidence. Some warn that the simple threat can end in a complaint and that courts give priority to the protection of the complainant.

The catalog of solutions: from legal to grotesque

Faced with the legal deadlock, solutions of all kinds appear. The most sensible involve hiring a lawyer specialized in separations and gender violence, especially if they coincide with an August with courts in holiday mode. Other recommendations have less legal basis: changing the lock, cutting non-vital expenses, restricting food and even inviting third parties to live together to force the departure through attrition. There is no shortage of ironic occurrences, such as changing registered sens to equalize rights, which portray the absurdity of a situation with no quick exit.

The uncomfortable question remains on the table: can an owner with a mortgage in his name have fewer tools to recover his flat than a landlord with a rental contract? The affected man was seeking advice when the story was interrupted. The only certainty is that living together without a net – without a contract, without separation of assets, without foresight for the case that one of the two is left without income – is a decision with property risk. And not all who make it are aware.