Marriage Doesn’t Matter—Until The Relationship Ends

* This article was published in the newspaper Postimees on June 4, 2025.

These days, marriage is no longer the cornerstone of every relationship. Many couples choose to live together, raise children, and build a life without ever formalizing their union. For many, this is a deliberate decision—often described as a common-law partnership or de facto partnership. Yet the legal consequences of such an arrangement often go unnoticed until the relationship ends. People frequently assume that the protections granted to married couples also apply to them, even when the relationship has never been officially registered.

In Estonia, marriage equality has been in force for over a year—a reform that sparked strong emotions both in Estonian Parliament and across society. Alongside this milestone, a long-standing legal ambiguity was finally resolved: the implementing acts of the 2016 Registered Partnership Act, which had long been missing, are now in place. As a result, couples who register their partnership are entitled to rights and obligations similar to those of married spouses.

Let’s be honest: when you have butterflies in your stomach and love in your heart, you’re not thinking about the possibility of breaking up one day. Surging happiness hormones make it difficult to discuss what might happen if things go wrong. But in reality, such conversations are just as important as making early inheritance arrangements.

Let’s be honest—when love is new and emotions run high, no one wants to think about the possibility of breaking up. Wrapped in the warmth of affection and optimism, few are inclined to talk about “what if.” But they should. Planning for the end of a relationship is just as important as making arrangements for inheritance.

Imagine a couple who have lived together for twenty years. They’ve raised children, built a home, and invested in daily life—but all the property, such as the home, is in one partner’s name. Perhaps the other has been reassured informally: “Don’t worry, if we ever separate, we’ll divide everything fairly.” Unfortunately, real-life experience shows that such trust does not always provide legal protection.

When a common-law relationship ends, one partner may walk away with nothing, as such relationships offer no automatic property rights or legal protection. For instance, if a home is purchased solely in one partner’s name while the other has contributed through renovations, domestic work, or childcare, these efforts do not guarantee any entitlement to the property upon separation. Often, one partner has assumed primary responsibility for raising children and managing the household, having set aside personal income or career advancement. When the relationship ends, it’s not just the adults who bear the consequences—children may suffer as well, since remedies from the law of obligations fail to consider their needs. Of course, child maintenance remains a separate issue.

These situations are quite common in Estonia, yet they remain legally ambiguous. The couple may have lived as spouses, but the law views them as two separate, unrelated individuals. This often leads to injustice—and in many cases, to deep personal hardships.

In contrast, registered partnerships offer legal clarity: the law provides the same options for regulating proprietary relationships as in marriage, including mutual maintenance obligations and protections in the event of separation.

Couples who choose not to register their relationship are not covered by the Registered Partnership Act. At best, the non-owning partner might succeed with a claim for reimbursement—if they can prove that they contributed financially to the property. But even then, success is not guaranteed, and such cases tend to be lengthy and complex. Moreover, provisions related to contracts of partnership under the Law of Obligations Act rarely apply to de facto relationships, as they were never intended for that purpose. Proving their relevance requires very strong and specific evidence to succeed with that claim.

Several countries have taken a step further by regulating the financial consequences of unregistered cohabitation. In Sweden[1], cohabiting partners have certain rights and obligations, though these are more limited than those in marriage—for example, they may make claims to the shared home and jointly used property. However, inheritance still requires a will. Finland[2] applies similar principles: a partner can claim compensation for their contributions under the law of obligations. Looking even further, New Zealand[3] grants rights comparable to marriage in the case of a de facto relationship lasting at least three years, including the right to inherit.

When people live together as spouses, their rights and obligations should partly reflect that reality. The law must mirror real life. This does not mean that everyone should automatically receive spousal rights—but there should be a clear way to define and protect the interests of the contributing partner in long-term informal relationships. The current legal system expects common-law couples to sign private agreements that regulate their property relations in detail. But as noted earlier, love rarely inspires legal negotiations.

Perhaps it is time for Estonia to consider establishing clearer rules regarding the rights and responsibilities that may arise from long-term cohabitation—regardless of whether the relationship is formally registered. Doing so would enhance legal certainty, protect the more vulnerable partner, and help prevent situations where the future of a partner or their children rests solely on trust and goodwill.