Oleksij wrote:I still don't understand the benefits of shared property through marriage - is it not better to actually leave properties to individual ownership, and, in case of sale, split the money by oral agreement? It takes a certain amount of decency to be able to do that, but it's better than going through all the bureaucracy in case of shared ownership.
Like you say, divorce is brutal and it plays havoc with human decency. My father--a lawyer (among other things)--used to say that in a divorce, "Each person just wants a reasonable amount of the common property--about 90%." He described the typical divorce procedure in the small town where he practiced as the two divorce attorneys sitting down together, working out what they considered to be an equitable settlement, then going back an trying to convince their respective clients to accept it.
As for why to pool assets in the first place? I think that should be clear: because you can own more stuff than you could otherwise. There's no way I could afford the apartment I'm in on my own, for instance. Sure, you can spell out by contract exactly what percentage I own and he owns and whose furnishings are whose, but that's tedious. Moreover, it makes it seem like you're expecting
to break up some day, which can have a detrimental effect on the relationship.
"Richmond is a real scholar; Owen just learns languages because he can't bear not to know what other people are saying."--Margaret Lattimore on her two sons