LW and No-Fault Divorce

[desecration]

Although, on that last point, one wonders what the result would be if we had data on the ones who got away with it.

Bingo. I think this one will be off the official lists. Also the collateral damage caused by resentment between the spouses, especially when business are forced to be sold, is fairly huge.

 

[desecration]

So what do the courts do when dividing marital property? First, at least in Illinois, they never refer to the grounds of divorce when splitting the marital assets. To the contrary, the statute expressly directs the courts to divide marital property—and determine alimony and child support, for that matter—without reference to the grounds of dissolution. The reason for this, and why most states have similar no-fault divisions of marital assets, is simple: Courts are too busy to litigate which spouse was the bigger bastard during the marriage before making the property split.

No, courts in Illinois determine property splits based on the quaint, and faintly defined, notion of doing what's equitable, which is another way for saying it seems the most fair under the circumstances. However, the layman's idea of fair and the legal notion of fair are diametrically opposed matters. How so? Well, take the wife earning $200,000 a year and the husband earning $40,000 per year and tell me which one will get a higher portion of the marital assets. The one who earned, and thus contributed, more to the marital assets? Wrong answer. Rather, the one who earned less will get a higher portion to give that person an opportunity to give them a more sound footing on which to start their new, post-divorce life.

Found this essay again. Big point: no-fault means even division, which victimizes the innocent spouse.

 

[desecration]

Fuel on the fire:

A woman has been awarded $180million and a slice of her ex-husband's substantial property portfolio after a bitter three-year divorce battle.

The Family Court heard the husband had given his then wife a 'life of luxury' but that they had been 'living apart together' since the 1990's.

Their relationship began to unravel in 2007 when the husband had an extra-marital affair at one of their overseas properties.

 

[alohadave]

Found this essay again. Big point: no-fault means even division, which victimizes the innocent spouse.

Something tells me that you didn't actually read that. No-fault has no bearing on division of assets in Illinois (and many other states).

The term you are looking for is Community Property, and it's only applicable in 9 states.

 

[Britva415]

The term you are looking for is Community Property, and it's only applicable in 9 states.

And even then, the parties negotiate. Fault may not be a factor in whether the divorce is granted or not, but it's a factor in these asset split negotiations.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Found this essay again. Big point: no-fault means even division, which victimizes the innocent spouse.

The essay gives an example of how a no-fault scenario could result in a 65/35 split. That's not "even division".

Edit:

The underlying issue here is that not everything is the courts' business. When a court does give an adulterous spouse an even share of the assets, it's not because they want to say "adultery is fine", it's because they don't consider it their job to figure out who the asshole was in the relationship; the asset split is mostly determined by other considerations.

 

[ClaireDescending]

So, the MC loves and cares about her, but once he finds out she cheated, he INSTANTLY loses all interest in the woman, to the point where he doesn't even care when she's violently killed. Not a single second of remorse, let alone grief, before he simply decided that her death was inevitable.

I'm sorry to say: That's not how it works.

I can’t remember exactly when, but in the last few weeks, over on Reddit, someone posted about how his girlfriend of some years might have been cheating. Turns out she was, and he immediately kicked her out and had no feelings at all about it. He said why waste the energy on feelings for someone who’s not worth it. The number of people who praised him and said they’d do the same was staggering.

Every ex who cheated on me caused me pain. Emotions aren’t a light switch. You can’t just turn them off.

 

[ClaireDescending]

I don't understand what this has to do with no-fault divorce. In fault-based divorce systems, fault is used to decide whether a divorce decree should be granted, but it's not the sole factor in deciding who gets what. It's not as though the system would likely leave the wife destitute just because she committed adultery. Divorce is an expensive and often economically devastating process to the parties regardless of whether it's fault-based.

The term you’re looking for is equitable division. No-fault divorce ONLY means that you don’t have to have a reason to divorce other than wanting one. It stems from an era pre-Reagan-as-California’s-governor, when there had to be a very good reason, aka someone was at fault.

(Reagan’s first wife successfully proved cruelty, aka abuse, which humiliated him, and so he instituted the nation’s first no-fault divorce so details would be kept private. Since he was an awful person, he later said that that was the biggest mistake of his live, even over ignoring the AIDS crisis while then-wife Nancy pleaded with him to do something.)

In equitable division states, judges will look at who brought and contributed what, and if there’s fault, will factor that in. In community property states, it’s down the middle. Period.

A cousin of mine is in Colorado, where it’s community property. Her estranged husband was injured before they got married, and when he could work again, he refused. She paid for him to go to school, and she bought the house, etc. He started becoming badly abusive, the kids begged her to divorce him so they could get away, she filed, he upped the ante and it resulted in their daughter ending up in the hospital, he broke down a door to get to my cousin, cops were called, he was arrested…MF’er’s still getting half of everything.

My mother-in-law is there as well, and her inheritance bought the house she and her asshole husband live in. He’s a cheater, and uses her for free labor to take care of his parents though she’s pushing 80 herself. She bought the house intending to the value to appreciate so it can be an inheritance for her kids. There was some commingling of property, and now the house is community property, and if they divorce, he gets half. Worse, if she dies before him (she’s 15 years older and breaking down from all the work she’s doing), the it all becomes his.

That’s how community property works. Sometimes it F’s over someone, though it was intended to protect at-home parents from ending up with nothing.

I’m in an equitable division state. Been a stay-at-home mom for 14 years. If my husband and I divorce amicably, since he contributed 100% financially, and no, homemaking legally has no monetary, he would be entitled to 100%. He could choose to give me something, but he’d get 100%. Thank goodness I have a spouse I know wouldn’t screw me over. Not only is he a good man, he knows that screwing anyone would devastate our daughter

Divorce can be amicable, if the parties are adults about it. My husband and his ex realized they just grew apart. Total cost? They split the cost of filing, divided their things themselves, went on their way, and she and her 2nd husband and her ex/my husband and I are all on great terms.

Off my soapbox now. I researched his in extreme depth for some books I’ve written. Like, talking with attorney.

 

[ClaireDescending]

The essay gives an example of how a no-fault scenario could result in a 65/35 split. That's not "even division".

That pertains to Illinois. There are states where it’s 50/50. Cousin of mine…she paid for literally everything since her estranged husband was a low-life, and he became abusive. Despite his actions resulting in their younger daughter ending up in the HOSPITAL, and then, when the kid was still in the hospital, he tried killing my cousin and was arrested, he’s still getting 50%. She doesn’t everything as long as she and the kids get away.

 

[ClaireDescending]

As to the question of whether no-fault divorce incentivizes murder, one could flip it around and say that a cheating husband in a fault-based system would have a great incentive to murder his wife to make sure that if she found out she couldn't divorce him and take his property. So the incentive argument is not only far-fetched and non-evidenced based, but invalid because, to the extent it carries any water, it can be flipped the other way.

A lot of geriatrics nurses, including all the ones I’ve ever known, had had very old women who, at the very end of their lives, confess to doing exactly this, in the days before no-fault divorce (y’all are mixing up fault/no-fault with community property/equitable division, and it’s extremely important to get this straight right now due to some goals from the far right…all states are no-fault, which pertains solely to whether or not a reason is given, and the other has to do with how property is handled). Women could be moderately abused, and it would still be hard to get a divorce. A lot of women stayed literally for the kids since fathers used to be granted ownership of the kids. Yeah, kids were, and largely still are, property. Staying meant they’d be the targets. It’s awful. So yeah, I believe the nurses who’ve told me with some glee about women confessing to killing abusers when it was too late to do anything about it.

 

[desecration]

More divorce murder because of the cost of divorce:

The prosecution say the pair hired an unknown killer to strike at Morgan's Food Fayre in Linslade, Bedfordshire, after realising divorcing their respective spouses would leave them in financial difficulties.

 

[desecration]

You break a business contract and there are consequences. You break your marriage contract and its "No fault, no blame, divide up the spoils and take care of the wife."

The protagonist has a point in this short story.

 

[desecration]

Another divorce murder case:

The investigation revealed what had appeared to be a good marriage was actually one fractured by Amy's affairs. A divorce could have split the family apart and might have meant the loss of the farm, which was worth millions.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Another divorce murder case:

I'm not sure why you're calling it that. The article does speculate about divorce and potential loss of the farm as a possible motive for murder but there's no confirmation that this actually was the motive.

The victim, Amy Mullis, hadn't filed for divorce. The husband convicted of her murder, Todd Mullis, hasn't discussed his motives, since he's still denying guilt. Further, one of Amy's friends is reported as saying:

"...[Amy] said she was scared of Todd and if he found out about – wanting a divorce or an affair that he would kill her."

That is: the murder victim, the person who presumably knew the killer best, thought that he'd be willing to kill her for an affair, even without divorce entering the picture.

Note also Todd's history of controlling behaviour:

Amy and Todd decided to try to work it out. They went to counseling. Amy quit her job at the hospital to work on the farm. Todd said she wanted to spend more time with her family. But Amy told friends she had no choice. ...

TERRY STANER: it was very regulated who she could do things with…. it was kind of a joke, the approved friend list -- that could actually do things with Amy. She was timed when she left home and when she got back.
Matthew Troiano:There was a line that was used that she was a prisoner of Todd. … So, this is pretty intense stuff. It's controlling behavior.

That kind of "coercive control" - even with a previous affair invoked as an excuse - is a major red flag. Guys like that don't need a financial motive to get murderous when they think "their" woman is cheating on them.

 

[Bramblethorn]

More divorce murder because of the cost of divorce:

That trial is ongoing and nobody has yet been convicted, but for the purposes of this discussion I'm happy to stick an "allegedly" on it and suppose that Carol Morgan's murder was indeed arranged by her husband and his lover.

This murder happened in England, in 1981, long before English law switched to no-fault divorce. So clearly it wasn't caused by no-fault divorce.

Further, given that the murder was (allegedly) organised by the cheating partners, not the cheated-upon, a system that punishes infidelity in the divorce settlement would give more motive for such a murder than a system which ignored infidelity.

 

[desecration]

This murder happened in England, in 1981, long before English law switched to no-fault divorce. So clearly it wasn't caused by no-fault divorce.

No-fault in the UK has more to do with the ability to get the divorce, not the distribution of assets, which was always more egalitarian than in the USA.

 

[desecration]

That kind of "coercive control" - even with a previous affair invoked as an excuse - is a major red flag.

I think it's overstated here, since she was able to conduct another affair which was ongoing at the tiem of her death.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think it's overstated here, since she was able to conduct another affair which was ongoing at the tiem of her death.

The guy she was having the affair with was a manager for their farm, so presumably he would've been on the list of people she was allowed to talk to.

Doesn't change the fact that having a list like that is a huge warning sign of a controlling and potentially violent man.

 

[desecration]

The terminally ill Houston gunned down prominent Las Vegas attorney Dennis Prince and his wife, Ashley, before turning the gun on himself.

The Princes were locked in a contentious custody battle with Dylan Houston, Ashley’s ex-husband and Joe Houston’s son.

News story covers more corpses of divorce.

 

[SimonDoom]

News story covers more corpses of divorce.

I realize you are just going to keep pounding away at your preferred narrative regardless of what the facts are, but this citation doesn't support your point. There's no reason to believe that the particular nature of the divorce laws had anything to do with these murders. Marriages go bad, people cheat, and bad things happen regardless of what the particular divorce law is. This is a matter of universal human experience, not divorce law. It's been pointed out to you that, applying incentive-based thinking about human behavior, there's every bit as much reason to believe people will murder and hurt others under fault-based systems as under non-fault based systems, but you don't have a response to that. Citing instances of sensational murder stories doesn't prove anything about the effects of systems, generally.

Having gone through a divorce, and having accomplished it without fake allegations of fault and blame, I find it hard to believe that anybody in this era would want to go back to a time when you had to allege fault to obtain a divorce. If you want to be divorced from someone, you should have that right.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Murder has always been a preferred method of getting rid of a wife or husband for those who think they can get away with it. Fiction and real-life, why split it down the middle when you can get all and her/his double indemnity life insurance is a nice bonus as well. (Double Indemnity and Body Heat) Please take into account that there have been countless men and women who have engineered their spouse's lives for centuries or longer. Henry VIII had an executioner murder a wife in a state-sanctioned divorce with prejudice.

News story covers more corpses of divorce.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I realize you are just going to keep pounding away at your preferred narrative regardless of what the facts are, but this citation doesn't support your point. There's no reason to believe that the particular nature of the divorce laws had anything to do with these murders.

It rather does feel like OP is googling "murder" + "divorce" and posting whatever comes up in this thread without much examination. On this particular one, looking at related coverage, seems like a fault-based system would have favoured the victim, once again increasing motives for murder.

Having gone through a divorce, and having accomplished it without fake allegations of fault and blame, I find it hard to believe that anybody in this era would want to go back to a time when you had to allege fault to obtain a divorce. If you want to be divorced from someone, you should have that right.

Something I haven't seen done here, but has potential for an interesting story: back in the day, when an English couple wanted a divorce but didn't have access to no-fault, the standard way to do that was for the husband to deliberately get caught committing adultery - he'd go to a hotel with some other woman, they'd get the maid to testify that she'd seen them enter the bedroom together. And then the wife could use that as grounds for divorce.

So the law actually pushed people to commit adultery that they otherwise might not have, as the only way to get out of a marriage that neither party wished to perpetuate.

 

[SimonDoom]

Something I haven't seen done here, but has potential for an interesting story: back in the day, when an English couple wanted a divorce but didn't have access to no-fault, the standard way to do that was for the husband to deliberately get caught committing adultery - he'd go to a hotel with some other woman, they'd get the maid to testify that she'd seen them enter the bedroom together. And then the wife could use that as grounds for divorce.

So the law actually pushed people to commit adultery that they otherwise might not have, as the only way to get out of a marriage that neither party wished to perpetuate.

Agreed. Totally messed up. It's always better to have a system that doesn't incentivize people to contrive falsehoods.

The example you gave struck me, somehow, as distinctively English. I think in America the guy would more likely want to pin it on the wife: Hire a detective and a plumber to set up photographing the wife in a fake compromising position. It makes for a better noir story, anyway, UNLESS the example you gave backfired, somehow. Suppose the English husband sent pictures to the wife, and she got so mad she killed the other woman, and then the husband felt he had to cover up his role in the fiasco, maybe by killing the wife, as well as the maid. That would be a good noir story.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The example you gave struck me, somehow, as distinctively English. I think in America the guy would more likely want to pin it on the wife: Hire a detective and a plumber to set up photographing the wife in a fake compromising position. It makes for a better noir story, anyway, UNLESS the example you gave backfired, somehow. Suppose the English husband sent pictures to the wife, and she got so mad she killed the other woman, and then the husband felt he had to cover up his role in the fiasco, maybe by killing the wife, as well as the maid. That would be a good noir story.

My non-expert understanding was that this was usually done by prior arrangement between husband and wife - "I want out, you want out, this is how we get that". So it wouldn't come as a surprise to the wife, and the "other woman" would probably be a sex worker hired specifically for this one time, somebody without a reputation to protect. (My partner, the history buff in our relationship, tells me that the evidence wouldn't usually be photographic; more likely just the hotel receipt and the maid's testimony.)

The reason it was usually the husband going to the hotel was that social consequences for an adulterous woman were generally much rougher than for a man. Done this way, both of them would be able to remarry afterwards, whereas if she were set up as the "guilty" party, she would likely be disgraced for life.

There's a bit in one of my favourite oldey-timey movies where the heir to a dukedom (Louis) is having an affair with a married woman (Sibella) who has ambitions to be his wife, not just his mistress. She tells him (falsely) that her husband Lionel has found out about their affair, and is threatening divorce - but that Lionel might be persuaded to let her divorce him instead, "if he knew that he was standing in the way of the happiness of the future Duke and Duchess".

That is: "my husband is about to divorce me, which will involve you in an ugly court case where he produces evidence that we were having an affair, which will damage your reputation. But if you commit to making me a duchess marrying me, I can talk him into taking the fall so your reputation is in the clear."

(Lest anybody take this fictional story as evidence of the perfidy of women in divorce situations, let me stress that although Sibella is a manipulative and dishonest piece of work, Louis is all that and a serial killer too.)

 

[MillieDynamite]

In your scenario, the husband didn't have to have committed adultery; just be willing to introduce fake evidence suggesting he had. The husband would have been the fall guy in this system because a man screwing around did much less damage to him than the wife.

My non-expert understanding was that this was usually done by prior arrangement between husband and wife - "I want out, you want out, this is how we get that". So it wouldn't come as a surprise to the wife, and the "other woman" would probably be a sex worker hired specifically for this one time, somebody without a reputation to protect. (My partner, the history buff in our relationship, tells me that the evidence wouldn't usually be photographic; more likely just the hotel receipt and the maid's testimony.)

The reason it was usually the husband going to the hotel was that social consequences for an adulterous woman were generally much rougher than for a man. Done this way, both of them would be able to remarry afterwards, whereas if she were set up as the "guilty" party, she would likely be disgraced for life.

There's a bit in one of my favourite oldey-timey movies where the heir to a dukedom (Louis) is having an affair with a married woman (Sibella) who has ambitions to be his wife, not just his mistress. She tells him (falsely) that her husband Lionel has found out about their affair, and is threatening divorce - but that Lionel might be persuaded to let her divorce him instead, "if he knew that he was standing in the way of the happiness of the future Duke and Duchess".

That is: "my husband is about to divorce me, which will involve you in an ugly court case where he produces evidence that we were having an affair, which will damage your reputation. But if you commit to making me a duchess marrying me, I can talk him into taking the fall so your reputation is in the clear."

(Lest anybody take this fictional story as evidence of the perfidy of women in divorce situations, let me stress that although Sibella is a manipulative and dishonest piece of work, Louis is all that and a serial killer too.)