Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
No-Fault Divorce Signed into Law
On Aug. 15, New York became the last state in the nation to enact a law offering no-fault divorce, when Governor David Paterson announced that he had approved the controversial measure, which has been debated for decades. The law, A9753/S3890, which applies to all divorce filings from now on, provides that one spouse can receive a divorce by declaring under oath that a marriage has been “irretrievably” broken for at least six months. However, other issues related to divorce, such as child custody and distribution of property, must first be resolved by the parties or determined by the court before a marriage can be dissolved.
A Long Time Coming
A 2003 survey by the Family Law Section of the state Bar Association of about 3,000 section members indicated three-quarters favored a no-fault option in New York. However, the change has been fought by the Roman Catholic Church and the National Organization for Women.
The change of majority party from Republican to Democrat in the state Senate allowed that chamber this year to pass a no-fault divorce bill for the first time in history on June 15, with the bare minimum of 32 votes. Up to now, the only grounds permitted for divorce in New York have adultery, abandonment, cruel and inhuman treatment, imprisonment of one of the spouses and separation for one year. Judges have frequently been forced to reject petitions for divorce.
“By removing the requirement to prove fault, divorcing couples and the courts will no longer have to waste resources litigating on whether a marriage should end, but will be able to better focus on issues such as the welfare of the children, fair division of marital assets and other economic concerns,” said Stephen P. Younger of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and president of the state bar. “The court system will ultimately realize substantial cost savings.”
Other Developments in New York Family Law
Gov. Paterson also signed another bill favored by no-fault divorce advocates, A7568/S4532, which requires payment of counsel and experts' fees to the “non-monied” party in a divorce action. Bill sponsors said the measure would level the playing field and allow the spouses ' generally the wife ' who has made little or no money during a marriage to protect their interests during a divorce.
Finally, Gov. Paterson also indicated that he had signed A10984/S8390, which will establish a schedule for temporary maintenance payments to non-monied spouses as their divorce proceedings move toward finality. The measure directs the state Law Revision Commission to study the effects of divorce and the new temporary maintenance schedule and report to the legislature and governor on possible changes.
Joel Stashenko is a reporter for the New York Law Journal, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter, in which this article first appeared.
On Aug. 15,
A Long Time Coming
A 2003 survey by the Family Law Section of the state Bar Association of about 3,000 section members indicated three-quarters favored a no-fault option in
The change of majority party from Republican to Democrat in the state Senate allowed that chamber this year to pass a no-fault divorce bill for the first time in history on June 15, with the bare minimum of 32 votes. Up to now, the only grounds permitted for divorce in
“By removing the requirement to prove fault, divorcing couples and the courts will no longer have to waste resources litigating on whether a marriage should end, but will be able to better focus on issues such as the welfare of the children, fair division of marital assets and other economic concerns,” said Stephen P. Younger of
Other Developments in
Gov. Paterson also signed another bill favored by no-fault divorce advocates, A7568/S4532, which requires payment of counsel and experts' fees to the “non-monied” party in a divorce action. Bill sponsors said the measure would level the playing field and allow the spouses ' generally the wife ' who has made little or no money during a marriage to protect their interests during a divorce.
Finally, Gov. Paterson also indicated that he had signed A10984/S8390, which will establish a schedule for temporary maintenance payments to non-monied spouses as their divorce proceedings move toward finality. The measure directs the state Law Revision Commission to study the effects of divorce and the new temporary maintenance schedule and report to the legislature and governor on possible changes.
Joel Stashenko is a reporter for the
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.