Guy can’t just dispose of longtime mistress
My friend, Ann, has been in relationship with a man for 17 years. Ann does not live with him, but he has provided for her financially. This guy still lives with his wife, therefore Ann is only his mistress; she is aware of this. He sees her regularly, they go to Florida together for weeks in his condo and travel together. A while ago, he built a new house under his name and Ann has lived there ever since. Now the relationship had gone sour; he has become verbally abusive, and wants her out. If the man sells the house, does she have any “conjugal” right to a share of the proceeds? Or can he just throw her out?
As always, what follows is an ethical, rather than legal opinion. Even ethically speaking, however, Ann’s rights depend on the nature of the understanding — or “contract” — between her and her future-former-lover.
No, she does not have conjugal rights. The guy, as you affectionately call him, has been living at home, and his visits to Ann were just that, visits — albeit extended at times. He lived with his wife and Ann was under no illusions about that. So there’s no sense in which she’s a “spouse” — common law or otherwise.
She might, however, be able to claim rights as a “dependant.” Dependants are not necessarily family members; given that this fellow has been paying her bills and providing housing, she might make the case that she was dependent on him and should not be arbitrarily cut off simply because he’s tired of her. That’s a bit of a stretch, but it’s not an impossible argument to make.
Another avenue to pursue would be the question of whether there was an “oral contract” between Ann and the dude. Was this merely a relationship of convenience for both of them? Or was there a time (not counting pre-coital love-talk) when he promised to “take care of her forever” — or made some such commitment at least. If there was, Ann can reasonably expect him to honour it. A court would require her to conclusively prove such a promise was made; ethics has no such prerequisite.
At the end of the day, however, none of what I’ve said really matters a whit. What does matter is the simple fact that women, and people in general, are not like pop cans — to be discarded or recycled when you’ve sucked the last ounce out of them.
Both invested heavily in it . . . Neither can now just wash their hands and walk away as if it never happened
In terms of their relationship to men, women are described by many different terms these days: wife (antiquated), spouse (clinical), partner (corporate), lover (sexualized), mistress (pejorative), secretary (demeaning) and so on. And even, less frequently, boss (hierarchical), reverend (ecclesiastical) or master (kinky).
No matter how the relationship between people is described, however, one term is never OK. People are never disposable (garbage). Ann and “the guy” had a relationship that was important to both of them; it lasted 17 years, longer than the average Canadian marriage. They both invested heavily in it, and got something out of it. Neither can now just wash their hands and walk away as if it never happened. He owes her more than “wham, bam, thank you, ma’am.” Send your questions to star.ethics@yahoo.ca