Prenups and we worry about gay marriage?

Yes, that is our system here....divorce law is a federal matter, so the law is the same in all parts of Australia.

No fault divorece came in in the early seventies, I think. I presume that is when spousal support ended, too.


So....some states have "fault" divorces?

"No fault" as a concept in insurance underwriting and in divorce seems to have appeared here in the 1970's, as well. In some states, a divorce proceeding is still an adversarial proceeding, with one side alleging harm on the part of the other party. That does not necessarily mean that in all of those states alimony is still an option. There are occasions upon which people have sued for support after a divorce and won a civil judgment, even though the state in question no longer has a provision for alimony. In those cases, the concept is that the aggreived party has sacrificed their career or earning potential on behalf of the accused, and seeks the recovery of damages. This notion came into prominence with the Lee Marvin "palimony" case, in which a woman who had lived with him (i don't know if she alleged a common law relationship or not) sued and won damages in compensation of having given up her career or earning potential on his behalf.

Normally, i don't delve very far into the law. I don't claim to be able to cite statutes. However, the first relationship in which i became involved after getting out of the army was with a woman who was legally separated from her husband (and she lied to me about that, at first--but relationships are complex and it wasn't a "deal buster"). She had moved to the state in which i lived for employment, but had filed for divorce in the state (neighboring) in which she had married, which state had "no fault" divorce. Her estranged husband moved to the state in which i lived, and was attempting to file for divorce there, and alleging desertion and alienation of affection against her, all in the attempt to use the adversarial system to avoid a loss of any property (in the other state, he'd have bee obliged to submit to arbitration to divide property). Since then, i've been curious to know these details when people i know divorce.

As a student of history, i long ago became aware that marriage and divorce have almost nothing to do with either love or religion, and everything to do with rights in property.

Somes states are fault, some are no-fault. One may still be obliged to pay alimony in a no-fault state. Maintenance is not imposed as a "penalty."

For instance, my state is a no-fault state, but spousal support is still ordered in the court's discretion, so long as its fair, just, and equitable, based on the circumstances of the case. The court looks at the same factors as it does in deciding property division:

1. the age of the parties
2. the parties' present and prospective earning capacities
3. the length of the marriage
4. the property owned by the parties
5. the parties' needs
6. the time, source and manner of acquisition of property,
7. the family ties and obligations, and
8. the parties' overall financial situation.

The court will also factor in whether one party is awarded income producing property in the divorce, the health of the parties, the ability to work or the time needed to get training to become employable, the standard of living during the marriage, and the comparative earning capacity of the parties.

Re: Prenups and we worry about gay marriage?

Thanks for the interesting bit of info, Tico. It just goes to show how laws are different from here to there.

A pre-nup probably isn't necessary in a second marriage, providing both spouses have clear wills.

For example, my will makes it clear that my son, not my stepsons, will inherit any family antiques and my cameo collection will go to my daughter-in-law.

My son has no rights to his stepfather's collection of tools.

I think pre-nup planning for second marriages is anticipating death more than divorce.