Debt: tie that binds closer than love

ROMANCE has well and truly died for a new breed of British couples who are staying in loveless relationships because joint mortgages and debt mean they cannot afford to move out, according to a new report.

As many as one in 20 couples are staying together because they claim they cannot afford to break up. They have been dubbed the "Money Over Love Couples". High property prices and rising levels of personal debt are making it increasingly difficult for people to extricate themselves from relationships when things go wrong, according to the survey.

Research, carried out for the Skipton Building Society, found that 9 per cent of people said they would be more likely to leave their partner if money was taken out of the equation, while more than one in ten said they knew someone who had continued to live with their ex as a result of financial pressures.

Jennifer Holloway, of Skipton Building Society, said that although couples pooling financial resources could enhance their lifestyle, they could pay a high price if the relationship came to an end.

When the actor Jude Law divorced Sadie Frost, the parting is thought to have cost him £2 million and the couple's marital home in London. Ms Holloway said: "There's no doubting two incomes are better than one and by sharing the cost of living, couples can have a nicer lifestyle - but at what cost to their relationship?

"While we're seeing a growing trend for choosing the high life over their love life, for those who decide to make the break it's important they get their finances in order to make the most of what money they have.

"Even better is for couples moving in together to consider completing a living-together agreement, such as the one recently launched by advicenow.org.uk which sets out their financial position before getting too far down the line."

Just over three-quarters of those questioned thought the number of couples who could not afford to break up had risen over the past five years.

Three out of four blamed the trend on the large amounts of equity people had in their properties, making it difficult for one partner to buy the other one out; 64 per cent blamed high house prices, and 41 per cent said it was rising levels of debt that made it difficult for people to separate their finances.

Women were more likely to suffer financially in a relationship break-up than men, with 35 per cent saying they would not be able to afford their mortgage repayments on their own, compared to 15 per cent of men. About 18 per cent of women said they would have to return to work if they separated, while 16 per cent said they would have to rely on their ex for financial support, something just 1 per cent of men said they would need to do.

Mary Weber, a co-habitation expert from Advicenow, said 75,000 couples had signed up to their online guide to drawing up a contract that would help in the event of a relationship going wrong. She agreed that women seemed to be hardest hit when a relationship foundered.

She said: "When couples move in together they are often very much in love and can't imagine things going wrong, but it is vital they know their rights when it comes to their housing. When things go wrong it is not always possible for one partner to buy out the other or agree to a joint sale.

"In the worst-case scenarios, the courts have to get involved, which prolongs matters at a time when, if there is bitterness, a couple will just want to walk away as quickly as possible.

"Women seem to suffer the worst in such situations, moving out first, leaving behind their possessions and receiving a fraction of what they own."

Ms Weber added: "The agreement we offer is like a pre- nuptial arrangement but without the nuptials. It can go beyond property to include such possessions as a car.

"It is a myth that there is any such thing as a common-law wife. No matter if you have been living with someone for two days or 20 years your rights are the same - non-existent."

An example is "Orla", who said: "I'd been with my partner Gareth for nine years when he sat me down and told me it was over. Later that evening, he told me that he understood it would take a couple of weeks, but that I should start looking for a flat right away. I was dumbfounded - less than three hours earlier he'd dumped me, and now he was making me homeless too.

"When we moved in we had put the tenancy in Gareth's name. The stupid thing is it was my suggestion, someone at work had told me it was easier if the tenancy was in one name. But apparently that means that he has the right to stay and I have to go. It doesn't matter that we've lived together for nine years, it counts for nothing."

Simon Fairclough, of the Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre, said: "When people are buying a property together, it is crucial to have an exit strategy. There are enough difficulties to contend with when you have the tragedy of a couple splitting up without working out the pragmatic details of how to divide up a property."

WHEN MONEY ENTERS THE EQUATION, BITTERNESS ISN'T FAR BEHIND

THE seemingly impossible conundrum of divorcing amicably when money enters the equation has led to a number of high-profile disputes among warring couples.

Earlier this week, Alan Miller, a 41-year-old financier, went to the Court of Appeal in London to try to overturn a £5 million award given to his former wife, Melissa, 35, to "keep her living on a higher economic plane", as deemed necessary by the previous trial judge.

Lewis Marks, QC, who was representing Mr Miller, perhaps conjured up a somewhat confrontational solution by saying it would have cost his client far less just to have run his wife over.

"If my client had knocked her down with his motor car, and she had suffered severe injuries - brain damage and losing the ability to have children - at most, the damages would be £2 million," Mr Marks said.

Another case which hit the headlines was that of Raymond Jalland, 58, a laboratory technician, who was jailed for life last month for murdering his second wife because he did not want to get "screwed" in a second divorce settlement.

Mr Jalland killed his wife Anne, 34, at their home in Harlesden, London, and disposed of her remains at a secret location. Her body has never been found.

Aftab Jafferjee, prosecuting, told jurors at the Old Bailey that when Mr Jalland's previous childless marriage ended, he was obliged to leave the marital home in Reading, Berkshire.

It was after his arrest concerning his second wife's disappearance that he made a revealing statement and told police that he felt he had been "screwed out of my money".

Even when couples are not arguing over the precise amount of money needed to end a marriage, there can still be high emotional costs.

Colin Montgomerie, Scotland's top golfer, described the emotional pain of having to sell the family home in Surrey to fund his wife Eimear's £13 million divorce settlement.

Speaking earlier this year, Montgomerie said: "This is our house and now it's all gone ... I put many, many years of strife and pressure and all my job into this house. It is all I could have wished for. And now I have to leave."

Montgomerie, who had shared the £6 million mansion with his wife and three children, said he also felt anger in that he believed he had fulfilled his side of the bargain by providing a home and a good standard of living, only to see it all disappear.