• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
This article, part of an issue that surveys changes in family law over the past 50 years, discusses how the economic consequences of divorce have changed during this period. This article surveys some of the various social changes that have had an impact, such as changes in the divorce rate, changes in the characteristics of divorcing couples, and changes in women's participation in the work force. Some family law legal changes are also discussed, such as the acceptance of equitable distribution and changes in rules applicable to spousal support. Other legal changes are mentioned, such as the acceptance of premarital agreements, the adoption of Medicare, and the acceptance of no-fault divorce.

The article notes that some very general consensus seems to be evolving regarding child support awards and marital property rules. In contrast, very different (and frequently unclear) standards are applied across the country regarding spousal support. The article discusses recent developments in Canada regarding the adoption of advisory spousal support guidelines as one potential avenue to increase predictability of spousal support awards in the U. S.

divorce, equitable distribution, alimony, spousal support, guidelines

Abstract:
Marital property rules in the U.S. vary greatly. In some states, all property is divisible, regardless when or how acquired. Most limit the scope of divisible property, but don't agree what is included in the divisible estate. In a few states, the divisible estate must be divided equally; in most, it is to be divided fairly, based on various factors.

So, a divorce property division can be substantially impacted by what law is chosen to apply to the couple's rights to property when they divorce. An increasing number of couples who divorce in the U.S. live in more than one state or country during marriage. It is curious that little attention has been given in the U.S. to how one should determine the applicable law in such instances.

In this article I summarize the primary European approach accepted in this situation, and compare it to what U.S. courts have done to date. I propose an approach for American courts to use to determine the rights of mobile spouses at divorce.

marital property, conflicts of law, divorce, mobile spouses

Abstract:
The debate in the United States about committed same-sex relationships is a contentious one. Until a few years ago, although a few states permitted a same-sex couple to opt into a status with few attributes, none had created a status anything like marriage for such couples. However recent events such as the Vermont and Massachustetts Supreme Court holdings, and the flurry of Defense of Marriage statutes are developments in U.S. family law that present novel issues. This paper outlines the rules applicable to marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships in Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and California. In addition, it will discuss whether other states will recognize such a status entered into elsewhere.

homosexuals, civil rights, gay marriage, Civil union, domestic partnership, conflicts of law, full faith and credit, marriage recognition

Abstract:
This is a survey of the development of the doctrine of dissipation in equitable distribution states. I note the differences between this developing doctrine and the rules that have been established in community property states regarding unilateral transfers of community property. I suggest certain changes in the doctrine to better advance the purposes underlying the concept of dissipation.

Dissipation, Equitable distribution, Divorce, Marital property

Abstract:
The United States is unusual for a federal system in that marital status is determined for many purposes based on state law, not federal law. This historically has not been very important because there has been general agreement about marriage rules. Neither polygamous nor gay marriage was accepted. During the past few years, however, the consensus about gay status has broken down. Massachusetts permitted gay marriage in 2004, and three other states (California, Connecticut, and Vermont) now permit a gay status that is the equivalent of marriage.

This has created the issue of whether other states will recognize a Massachusetts gay marriage or the status equivalent available in California, Connecticut and Vermont. Massachusetts will not let gay non-residents marry; in the other three states, though, non-residents may establish a gay status. This lack of a residency requirement has further complicated the issue of gay status recognition.

Gay status questions can arise in three situations. First, residents of a state that does not recognize a gay status could go to California, Connecticut or Vermont, establish a status, and then return to the state of residence. (This is referred to as an evasive status.) Second, residents of a state that permits a gay status could establish a status in their state of residence and then later move to a state that does not accept one. (This is referred as a migratory status.) Third, parties who establish a gay status in their state of residence may never move, but may need the status recognized in another state (that does not recognize a gay status) for some purpose. (This is sometimes called a visitor status.)

Gay status has been very controversial in the U. S. Many states have passed laws providing that the state should not recognize a gay status established elsewhere. This paper discusses how it is unlikely that a state will recognize an evasive status, particularly if the state has passed a law expressly disapproving of a gay status. The recognition of a visitor status seems the most likely. Migratory status recognition is the most unclear issue. At the present time, it appears that states will not recognize a migratory status, if that state has enacted a law expressly disapproving of a gay status.