Cohabitation

[L. cohabitatio.]

1. The act or state of dwelling together, or in the same place with another. Feltham.

2. (Law) The living together of a man and woman in supposed sexual relationship.

That the duty of cohabitation is released by the cruelty of one of the parties is admitted.

A living arrangement in which an unmarried couple live together in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage.

Couples cohabit rather than marrying for a variety of reasons. They may want to test their compatibility before they commit to a legal union. They may want to maintain their single status for financial reasons. In some cases, such as those involving gay or lesbian couples, or individuals already married to another person, the law does not allow them to marry. In others, the partners may feel that marriage is unnecessary. Whatever the reasons, between 1970 and 1990, the number of couples living together outside of marriage quadrupled, from 523,000 to nearly 3 million. These couples face some of the same legal issues as married people, as well as some their married friends never need to consider.

In most places, it is legal for unmarried people to live together, although some zoning laws prohibit more than three unrelated people from inhabiting a house or apartment. A few states still prohibit fornication, or sexual relations between an unmarried man and woman, but such laws are no longer enforced. Some states also prohibit sodomy, which includes sexual relations between people of the same sex. Although anti-sodomy laws are rarely enforced against consenting adults acting in the privacy of their homes, a 1986 Supreme Court case proved that such laws can be. In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S. Ct. 2841, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140, the Court held that private, consensual homosexual acts are not protected by the right to privacy and that laws prohibiting such conduct are constitutional.

The law traditionally has been biased in favor of marriage. Public policy supports marriage as necessary to the stability of the family, the basic societal unit. To preserve and encourage marriage, the law reserves many rights and privileges to married persons. Cohabitation carries none of those rights and privileges. It has been said that cohabitation has all the headaches of marriage without any of the benefits. Cohabiting couples have little guidance as to their legal rights in such areas as property ownership, responsibility for debts, custody, access to health care and other benefits, and survivorship.

Family law experts advise cohabiting couples to address these and other issues in a written cohabitation agreement, similar to a premarital agreement. The contract should outline how the couple will divide expenses and own property, whether they will maintain joint or separate bank accounts, and how their assets will be distributed if one partner dies or leaves the relationship. Property acquired during cohabitation, such as real estate, home furnishings, antiques, artwork, china, silver, tools, and sports equipment, may be contested if partners separate or if one of them dies. To avoid this, the agreement should clearly outline who is entitled to what.

When cohabiting couples separate, division of assets often becomes a contentious issue. In the past, courts refused to enforce agreements between unmarried couples to share income or assets, holding that such agreements were against public policy. In 1976, the California Supreme Court decided Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106, holding that agreements between cohabiting couples to share income received during the time they live together can be legally binding and enforceable. The highly publicized suit between actor Lee Marvin and his live-in companion, Michelle Triola Marvin, was the first of a series of "palimony" suits that became more numerous during the 1980s and 1990s. The plaintiff in a palimony suit must prove that the agreement of financial support is not a meretricious agreement, that is, one made in exchange for a promise of sexual relations. Courts refuse to enforce meretricious contracts because of their similarity to contracts for prostitution.

The only way to guarantee that a valid agreement of support or division of property exists is to have it in writing. In the Marvin case, the plaintiff, who asked for $1.6 million, was awarded only $104,000. That amount was revoked by an appeals court, which found that the plaintiff had failed to show that she and the defendant had an agreement (Marvin v. Marvin, 122 Cal. App. 3d 871, 176 Cal. Rptr. 555 [Cal. Ct. App. 1981]). Conversely, when tennis star Martina Navratilova separated from live-in lover Judy Nelson in 1993, Nelson filed a $16 million palimony suit, claiming that Navratilova reneged on a promise to share whatever the couple accumulated during their relationship. A signed and videotaped 1986 cohabitation agreement supported Nelson's claim, and Navratilova settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Cohabiting parents may face legal difficulties if they separate without a written parenting agreement. An unmarried father must acknowledge paternity by filing an affidavit with the state legitimating his child and establishing his parental relationship. Likewise, both parents must actively participate in the raising of the child in order to have a legitimate claim to custody or visitation. By legitimating their child and being involved in the child's upbringing, unmarried parents establish their right to seek custody or visitation if the family breaks up. Legitimation is also important for inheritance purposes. If an unmarried father dies without a will, his legitimated child can freely inherit his estate (see Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S. Ct. 1459, 52 L. Ed. 2d 31 [1977], which held that a signed statement establishing paternity of a child born out of wedlock is adequate protection of the child's inheritance rights). Of course, the best way to guarantee the distribution of assets to children is through a written will.

Cohabiting couples may face difficulties when one of them becomes ill and requires hospitalization or long-term care. The case of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson illustrates this problem. Kowalski and Thompson lived together for four years before Kowalski sustained serious head injuries in a 1983 automobile accident. She was left paralyzed and seriously brain damaged, but able to communicate. Kowalski's parents refused to allow Thompson to see her or to participate in decisions about her treatment.

In 1984, Kowalski's father was awarded guardianship of Kowalski (In re Kowalski, 382 N.W.2d 861, cert. denied, 106 S. Ct. 1467 [Minn. Ct. App. 1986]), and the family continued to frustrate Thompson's efforts to see or assist Kowalski. In 1991, Kowalski's father voluntarily gave up his guardianship for medical reasons, and a Minnesota trial court awarded guardianship to Karen Tomberlin, a family friend whom the court considered a "neutral third party." The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and after a seven-year battle, Thompson was finally granted guardianship of Kowalski (In re Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790 [Minn. Ct. App. 1991]). The court held that Kowalski had "sufficient capacity" to express her preference as to a guardian and that she had consistently said she wanted to be with Thompson. Also, the court noted the duration of the couple's relationship as well as the fact that they had exchanged rings and named each other as insurance beneficiaries before Kowalski's accident.

Cohabiting couples can avoid such conflicts by executing certain documents, including a durable power of attorney and a medical power of attorney. A durable power of attorney grants the necessary authority to an unmarried partner to make decisions in the event of physical or mental disability of the other partner. It goes further than a general power of attorney in that it specifically allows one partner to continue making decisions even if the other partner becomes incapacitated. A medical power of attorney allows one partner to make decisions regarding medical treatment for the other. If the partners have specific instructions about funeral arrangements, these too should be put in writing. In addition, a written will or trust allows partners to specify the distribution of their property, including life insurance benefits, IRAs, and bank accounts. Partners may also name their preferred trustee or executor.

Many cohabiting heterosexual couples believe that the law will recognize their relationship as a common-law marriage with the legal protections and financial benefits of marriage. However, only Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah recognize common-law marriage. In those states, a man and woman who live together and represent themselves as married may be given common-law recognition. Once a common-law marriage has been established, it must be dissolved through divorce. Cohabiting couples who live in a state that recognizes common-law marriage and do not wish to be married should execute a statement that they are not married in order to avoid a later finding that a common-law marriage existed.

In the 1990s, a few courts began to recognize the familial ties of unmarried couples. In Braschi v. Stahl Associates, 74 N.Y.2d 201, 543 N.E.2d 49, 544 N.Y.S.2d 784 (1989), New York's highest court found that a homosexual man and his deceased life partner had constituted a family for purposes of New York City's rent control ordinance. The court found that in this case, the term family should be construed broadly and should encompass contemporary realities, including unmarried adult partners in a long-term, committed relationship that shows mutual sharing of the mundane tasks of everyday life. Similarly, in Dunphy v. Gregor, 261 N.J. Super. 110, 617 A.2d 1248 (N.J. 1992), the court found that a woman who had witnessed the events leading to her fiancé's death had standing to sue for the emotional damage she suffered as a result. Previously, suits such as this, called bystander liability suits, were limited to those who were married or had blood ties to the victim. However, the court in Dunphy found that the plaintiff met the requirement of "intimate familial relationship," noting that the plaintiff and her fiancé had lived together for several years, that there was a high degree of mutual dependence in their relationship, and that they contributed to and shared a common life.

During the 1980s and 1990s, some municipalities passed laws allowing unmarried couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, to register as domestic partners. Cities with such ordinances include Ann Arbor, Michigan; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Ithaca, New York; Laguna Beach and Los Angeles, California; and Madison, Wisconsin. The ordinances allow couples to register as domestic partners, and to dissolve their partnerships officially if they separate. Under most of these laws, couples file an affidavit stating that they are over eighteen years of age, are unmarried, and are involved in a relationship of mutual support, caring, and commitment. If they terminate the partnership, they must file a statement to that effect. The benefits of registering as domestic partners include recognition of the relationship, eligibility for discounts usually reserved to married couples, and extension of health care benefits and bereavement and sick leave for partners of municipal employees.

Two 1995 court decisions declared particular domestic partner ordinances invalid. In Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W. 2d 107, the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a Minneapolis city council resolution authorizing reimbursement to city employees for health care insurance costs for same-sex domestic partners and for blood relatives not classified as dependents under state law. The court held that the resolution was beyond the scope of the council's authority and lacked legal force. Likewise, in City of Atlanta v. McKinney, 265 Ga. 161, 454 S.E.2d 517, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the city of Atlanta exceeded its authority when it extended employee benefits to persons who did not qualify as dependents under state law.

; parent and child.

See: gay and lesbian rights.

This article is about a living arrangement. For the situation in governmental politics, see Cohabitation (government).

Close relationships

Affinity • Attachment • Bonding • Casual • Cohabitation • Compersion • Concubinage • Courtship • Divorce • Dower, dowry and bride price • Friendship • Family • Husband • Infatuation • Intimacy • Jealousy • Limerence • Love • Marriage • Monogamy • Nonmonogamy • Office romance • Passion • Partner • Pederasty • Polygamy• Platonic love • Psychology of monogamy • Relationship abuse • Romance • Sexuality • Separation • Wedding • Widowhood • Wife

Cohabitation is an emotional and physical intimate relationship which includes a common living place and which exists without legal or religious sanction.

Description

Several common reasons that lead couples to decide to live together include: wanting to test compatibility or establish financial security before marrying, a desire to live as married when same-sex, interracial, or interreligious marriages are not legal or permitted, living with someone before marriage as a way to avoid divorce, a way for polygamists to avoid anti-polygamy laws, a way to avoid the higher income taxes paid by some two-income married couples (in the United States), and seeing little difference between the commitment to live together and the commitment to marriage.

Some couples prefer cohabitation because it does not legally commit them for an extended period of time, and because it is easier to establish and dissolve. In some countries (such as Scotland) and some states in the United States, such cohabitations can be viewed legally as common-law marriages, either after the duration of a specified period or the birth of a child of the couple, or if the couple consider one another as husband and wife and behave accordingly. (This helps provide the surviving partner a legal basis for inheriting the deceased's belongings in the event of the death of their cohabiting partner.)

Today, cohabitation is a common pattern among younger people in the Western world, especially those who desire marriage but whose financial situation temporarily precludes it, or wish to prepare for what married life will be like before actually getting married. More and more couples choose to have long term relationships without marriage, and co-habitate as a permanent arrangement.

Opposition

Traditionally in the Western world, a man and a woman who lived together without being married were socially shunned and persecuted and potentially prosecuted by law. In some jurisdictions, cohabitation was illegal until quite recently. Other jurisdictions have created a Common-law marriage status when two people of the opposite sex live together for a prescribed period of time.

Opposition to cohabitation comes mainly from conservative religious and family ethics groups. Religious arguments aside, opponents to cohabitation usually argue that living together (as opposed to marriage) is unstable and hence harmful for both partners, as well as for the children (if there are such). According to one argument, the total and unconditional commitment of marriage strengthens a couple's bond and makes the partners feel more secure, relaxed, and happier than those that have chosen to 'test the waters'.^[1] Opponents of cohabitation commonly cite statistics that indicate that couples who have lived together before marriage are more likely to divorce, and that unhappiness, ill health, poverty and domestic violence are more common in unmarried couples than in married ones.^[2] Cohabitation advocates in turn cite research that either disproves these claims or indicates that the statistical differences are due to other factors than the fact of cohabitation itself.^[3]

Cohabitation worldwide

United States

Statistics

In some States of the United States, there is no legal registration or definition of cohabitation, so demographers have developed various methods of identifying cohabitation and measuring its prevalence. Most important of these is the Census Bureau, which currently describes an "unmarried partner" as "A person age 15 years and over, who is not related to the householder, who shares living quarters, and who has a close personal relationship with the householder."^[4] Before 1995, the Bureau euphemistically identified any "unrelated" opposite-sex couple living with no other adults as POSSLQs, or Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters.^[5], and they still report these numbers to show historical trends. However, such measures should be taken loosely, as researchers report that cohabitation often does not have clear start and end dates, as people move in and out of each other's homes and sometimes do not agree on the definition of their living arrangement at a particular moment in time.^[6]

As of 2001, in the United States 8.2% of couples were cohabiting.^[7]

In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 4.85 million cohabiting couples, up more than 1,000 percent from 1960, when there were 439,000 such couples. A 2000 study found that more than half of newlyweds lived together, at least briefly, before walking down the aisle.

The cohabiting population, although inclusive of all ages, is mainly made up of those between the ages of 25 and 34^[8].

Legal status

Some places, including the state of California, have laws that recognize cohabiting couples as "domestic partners". In California, such couples are defined as people who "have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring," including having a "common residence."^[9] This recognition led to the creation of a "Domestic Partners Registry", which is available to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples in which at least one of the partners is age 62 or older, granting them limited legal recognition and some rights similar to those of married couples.

Decades ago, it was illegal in every state for adult lovers to live together without being married. Today, on the other hand, just seven (7) states (North Carolina, Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Idaho and Michigan) still criminalize cohabitation by opposite-sex couples, although anti-cohabitation laws are generally not enforced. ^[10] Many legal scholars believe that in light of in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) such laws making cohabitation illegal are unconstitutional (North Carolina Superior Court judge Benjamin Alford has struck down the North Carolina law on that basis).^[11]

Europe

• In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, cohabitation is very common; roughly 50% of all children are born into families of unmarried couples, whereas the same figure for several other Western European countries is roughly 10%.
• In late 2005, 21% of families in Finland consisted of cohabitating couples (all age groups). Of couples with children, 18% were cohabitating^[12]. Of ages 18 and above in 2003, 13.4% were cohabitating^[13]. Generally, cohabitation amongst Finns is most common for people under 30. Legal obstacles for cohabitation were removed in 1926 in a reform of the Finnish penal code, while the phenomenon was socially accepted much later on among non-Christian Finns.
• In the UK, 25% of children are now born to cohabiting parents.
• In France, 17.5% of couples were cohabiting as of 1999.^[7]

Middle East

• The cohabitation rate in Israel is less than 3% of all couples, compared to 8%, on average, in West European countries. [1]
• Cohabitation is illegal according to Islamic law, with one exception: sexual relations between a female slave and a male master are allowed.^[14][15]

Asia

• In India, cohabitation is generally taboo. Increasingly large numbers of young couples in big cities prefer it.^{[citation needed]} As in other places, people with conservative religious views are opposed to it.^{[citation needed]} Female live in partners have economic rights under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.

• In Japan, according to M. Iwasawa at the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, less than 3% of females between 25-29 are currently cohabiting, but more than 1 in 5 have had some experience of an unmarried partnership, including cohabitation.

• In the Philippines, around 2.4 million Filipinos (18% of population) were cohabitating as of 2004 . The vast majority of them are between the ages of 20-24. Poverty was often the main factor in decision to cohabitate.^[16]

Pacific

• In Australia, 22% of couples were cohabiting as of 2005. See Australian Bureau of Statistics.
• In New Zealand, 18.3% of couples were cohabiting as of 2001.^[7]

North America - other

• In Canada, 16.0% of couples were cohabiting as of 2001 (29.8.% in Quebec, and 11.7% in the other provinces).^[7]

• In Mexico, 18.7% of couples were cohabiting as of 2000.^[7]

See also

• Family
  • Family law
• Child
  • Illegitimacy
• Interpersonal relationship and Intimate relationship
  • Common-law marriage
  • Pilegesh
  • Divorce
  • Domestic partnership
  • Marriage
  • Free union
• POSSLQ
• Marriage gap
• Living Apart Together

References

1. ^ Morse, Jennifer Roback. Why Not Take Her for a Test Drive?. Retrieved on 2007-04-19.
2. ^ Are there reasons why I shouldn't move in with my boyfriend?. Retrieved on 2007-04-17.
3. ^ The Experts Speak.. Retrieved on 2007-06-27. On the website of the Alternatives to marriage project.
4. ^ See "Household Type and Relationship".
5. ^ See "Current Population Survey (CPS) - Definitions and Explanations"
6. ^ Manning, Wendy D. and Pamela J. Smock. 2005. "Measuring and Modeling Cohabitation: New Perspectives from Qualitative Data." Journal of Marriage and Family 67(4):989-1002.
7. ^ ^{a b c d e} Anne-Marie Ambert: Cohabitation and Marriage: How Are They Related?. The Vanier Institute of the Family, Fall 2005)
8. ^ Cohabitation is replacing dating USA Today 7/17/2005
9. ^ See California Family Code Section 297.
10. ^ http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/02/022807virginia.htm]
11. ^ See "Judge strikes down law banning cohabitation" and "N.C. law banning cohabitation struck down".
12. ^ The Finnish population structure of 2005 at Statistics Finland (Finnish/Swedish)
13. ^ Elected MPs and candidates by family type in 2003 at Statistics Finland (English)
14. ^ See commentary on verses ^{[Qur'an 23:1]}: Vol. 3, notes 7-1, p. 241; 2000, Islamic Publications
15. ^ Tafsir ibn Kathir 4:24
16. ^ http://www.gmanews.tv/wedding/tomarryornot.html

External links

• Alternatives to marriage project
• Parul Kumar examines the legal status of cohabitees in relation to the treatment in UK
• Pilegesh.org Blog Pilegesh relationships - cohabitation according to Judaism
• One Plus One
• Married or not

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)