When you get married, there's a sort of unspoken assumption that you're now a team. What's yours is mine and what's mine is yours, blah blah.
But what happens when one half of the partnership contributes more financially than the other half? Sounds like lots of married couples, particularly those with children.
Should that mean the family home should be effectively owned by just the contributing person?
One woman has posted to Mumsnet after her husband admitted he won't be putting her name on any home they purchase, because she did not contribute towards it.
"I've been with my husband for five years – married for two and-a-half years," the woman wrote in her post.
"Neither of us have dependent children – his are all grown and I don't have any."
The couple, who are both in their 50s, have been living in their current home for almost five years now, which was purchased approximately three years ago using some of the husband's retirement payout.
"He refused to put my name on the deeds and has said if we move (which we are planning to do) he won't put my name on any future house," she continued.
"When I ask why he says it's because I never contributed to the purchase of it so he doesn't see why I should get anything from it if we were to divorce."
The woman said this makes her "very insecure" and as a result, she now finds it difficult to trust him.
She said that he has signed his pension over to her in the event of his death, but has asked where she stands financially if they were to separate.
She has around US$70,000 in savings and no pension, while he has the equivalent of over a million New Zealand dollars in his pension, drawing a regular income from it plus the home in his name.
She has asked if she is unreasonable to be upset that she's not on the house deeds.
Responses on this one were mixed.
"I'm all for protecting assets but it's not a very nice situation for you to be in," commented one person, "and I probably would feel the same as you about it."
Another said: "If I were married to this man, his actions would tell me he doesn't love me. Ask him if he was struck down with a serious illness tomorrow would he expect you to be his carer for him?!"
Yet some others pointed out it was his money, so there's no problem.
"He brought it with HIS pension pot," pointed out one commenter. "Why should you benefit in a divorce. You have only been married 2.5 years. It's not his fault you don't have a pension. You're treating him like a cash cow. I would discuss what happens in the event of his death to the house. You need to secure your own assets and stop looking to his."
The fact the couple never had children or built a life together made a big difference to some: "I imagine he's expecting the house to go to his grown up children as inheritance. Which kind of makes sense as he paid for it 100 per cent.
"Why do you feel you have a financial claim? Are you working/contributing to the house? Did you have your own house prior to meeting him?"
Perhaps the lesson to be learnt here is to never make any assumptions about what would be yours in the event of your partner's death, or if you were to separate.
Wouldn't most people want to leave something to their children, particularly when in a relationship that's not even hit the seven-year itch yet?
Couples should make a will that can list exactly where assets are to go when someone dies.
And if you feel as though you're getting the raw end of the deal, seek personal legal advice. You're not always entitled to something just because you're married.