For years, living together was synonymous with “having no rights.” For many couples, living together seemed like a way to avoid legal obligations. Today this idea is beginning to be forgotten. A recent ruling once again brings a profound change in politics onto the agenda Argentine family law: The justice system begins to recognize property rights of cohabitants, even after the relationship breaks down or one of them dies. This is not about equating cohabitation with marriage, but about something more subtle and at the same time more disruptive: the legal recognition of shared life plans that until recently were invisible to the legal system. Cohabitation was no longer an exception and became one of the predominant forms of couple formation in Argentina. Official data confirms this cultural change.
In the City of Buenos AiresIn 2024, cohabitation grew by 60%, while the number of marriages fell by 12% during the same period, according to federal statistics Government of Buenos Aires. The trend is not an isolated case. Demographic studies of CONICET show that, especially among younger generations, living together has replaced marriage as the first form of living together. At the national level, an ongoing process can be observed: marriage is being postponed, cohabitation is increasing and family forms are diversifying. He Family lawHistorically focused on marriage, it is therefore faced with the challenge of adapting to an already changing social reality.
Living together doesn’t mean getting married, but it also doesn’t mean “not having rights.” He Civil and Commercial Code recognizes non-marital partnerships, but with a different scope than marriage. Living together does not create a property or inheritance partnership, but it can have specific legal effects. The special legal effects of living together include the obligation to contribute to household costs, the protection of the family home and certain rights towards third parties.
These include the obligation to contribute to household costs, the protection of the family home, certain rights vis-à-vis third parties and, in certain cases, the right to financial compensation if the dissolution of the cohabitation creates an unjustified imbalance. These effects were interpreted restrictively for years. Today, case law is beginning to expand this perspective.
The ruling that ushers in a new phase for non-marital cohabitation. A bug that became known in the last few days of Civil, Commercial, Family and Family Violence Appeals Chamber of Tucumán marks a turning point. The court ordered the payment of financial compensation to a woman who lived with her partner for seven years and found herself in a precarious situation after his death. As reported, the court ruled that financial compensation is not compensation or social assistance, but rather a legal tool to correct the unfair imbalance that can lead to the failure – or even failure – of a common life project. The decision was based on a gender-specific interpretation of Article 525 of the law Civil and Commercial Code of the Nationwhich regulates the economic compensation of roommates if the relationship ends and one of them suffers economic damage.
What is crucial about this decision is not only the result, but also its basis: the recognition of property rights to the cohabitant even after the death of the couple, thereby expanding the traditional scope Family lawhistorically focused almost exclusively on marriage. This ruling does not equate cohabitation with marriage, but it sends a clear message: cohabitation is no longer legally invisible.
An international perspective: What the legal academy is also discussing. This debate is not exclusive to that Argentina. From an international academic perspective Harvard Law School and the Harvard Law Review For years they have been analyzing how the law should respond to couples who live together without marriage and still develop real life projects together. In particular, the use of figures such as unjust enrichment and property restitution was examined to prevent those who have made financial contributions or taken on caring responsibilities from being left completely defenseless following the separation or death of one of the co-residents. The aim of the discussion is not to equate cohabitation with marriage, but rather to introduce criteria of justice when there is an obvious imbalance.
This train of thought, present in training in Family law In Harvardreaffirms a central idea: nonmarital relationships between adults can no longer lie entirely outside the legal system, and the challenge of contemporary law is to balance personal autonomy with patrimonial justice. The challenge of modern law is to balance personal autonomy and property justice in adult nonmarital relationships.
Three big misunderstandings that I see every day in professional practice. Everyday experience shows deep social confusion about the effects of living together. 1. “I have no rights because I didn’t get married” Many people are surprised to discover that cohabitation brings with it certain rights, especially if there was economic dependency, caring responsibilities or an obvious imbalance after the separation. 2. “I have the same rights as a spouse” This is where the most painful situations arise. Life partners who have cared for their partner for years but cannot decide on their health, their hospital stay or their fate because the law does not treat them on an equal footing with their spouse. I have accompanied cases in which the children completely displaced the couple living together, even removing the person from the shared apartment and placing them in a nursing home against their will. 3. “If we build together, half is mine.” Another common mistake. If the house was built on a property that only belongs to one of the roommates, the building belongs to the property owner. The other person can only claim the money deposited if they can prove this. Simply living together does not automatically give rise to a claim to half of the property.
More rights also mean more obligations. The judicial recognition of new rights for roommates brings with it an inevitable consequence: more rights also mean more obligations. Many people have chosen to live together for years to avoid legal liability. Today this logic is beginning to be forgotten. Justice not only recognizes rights in the event of obvious imbalances, but also requires responsible behavior in coexistence, creditable contributions, contribution to the household and respect for commitments made, even if they are not recorded in writing. In this new scenario, cohabitation is no longer a zone without legal consequences.
Living together creates impacts, and ignoring them can lead to both unexpected demands and obligations that were previously thought not to exist. How to protect a community. There are legal tools to organize cohabitation and avoid future conflicts: cohabitation agreements, clear economic agreements, documentation of contributions, wills within the available part and preventive advice. This is not about distrusting the other person, but rather about preventing the emotional project from being left to legal chance.
Smart marriage: a possible alternative. Many couples live together because they fear the consequences of a traditional marriage. With this in mind, I developed the concept Smart marriagea model that proposes from the outset a commitment to asset separation, marriage contracts, inheritance and clear rules. It’s not mistrust, it’s emotional maturity and legal foresight. Living communities change. Justice begins to recognize rights that did not previously exist, especially when obvious imbalances exist. But living together does not mean getting married, nor does it automatically create rights. Information and foresight remain essential to avoid conflict, loss of assets and deeply unfair situations.
Because in the Family lawAs in life, what is not discussed in time is usually discussed late.
About The Author
