Save
Busy. Please wait.
Log in with Clever
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
Sign up using Clever
or

Username is available taken
show password


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
Your email address is only used to allow you to reset your password. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.
focusNode
Didn't know it?
click below
 
Knew it?
click below
Don't know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
0:00
share
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

FMSC487 Exam 2

Marriage and Divorce

TermDefinition
Moe v. Dinkins (NY 1981) H: Parental consent is required for girls age 14 and boys 16 when they want to get married; importance of parents in raising children
JMH and Rouse v. Dept. of HS (Colo. 2006) F: Prisoner (on charges of sexual assault of a child) supports his marriage claim to 15-year-old (lived together since she was 14); mother consented; child was ward of state H: They were common law married, so they didn't need to have state/parent approv
Israel v. Allen (Colo. 1978) I: Can a brother marry his father's daughter (his sister) by adoption in marriage? H: Doesn't apply for adoption, just blood relationship
Mental capacity 1. Does the person have sufficient IQ to marry? (is normal intelligence the standard?) 2. Was the person fully capacitated (effects of drugs or alcohol)?
Blair v. Blair (Mo. 2004) F: H wants annulment after W confesses that child is not his H: not fraud; he would have married her anyway
VJS v. MJB (NJ 1991) H: said they would have children but refused after, so marriage should be annuled
Bigamy Prior valid marrige invalidates the subsequent marriage
Reynolds v. US US Supreme Court upheld a federal law criminalizing polygamy in Utah by Mormons, even though it was a religious tenant
Utah v. Brown and 4 wives H: Court determined that only married 1st wife in state recognized marriage' others were religious marriages (no legal effect) Struck part of Utah's anti-polygamy laws BUT part prohibiting polygamy was preserved
Warren Jeffs cases Fundamentalist religious group-living (now disavowed) Mormon rule of polygamy WJ received life sentence for child sexual abuse and bigamy
NC v. Lynch I: Was it polygamy, when he married while his prior marriage was still valid? H: No, the officiant at the second wedding was no good, so invalid 2nd marriage
Void Marriage Void from the existence throughout; never would be recognized
Voidable Often offends some lesser policy; deemed valid unless it is set aside through timely annulment proceeding
Absolute void Deemed invalid even without judicial declaration because it offends some major public policy concern (ex. man trying to marry a cow)
Annulment/Declaration of invalidity Annulment declares (by court order) that a marriage never came into existence because some legal impediment existed at the ceremony/inception of marriage
Kober v. Kober (NY 1965) F: woman found out she was married to a former SS officer, who wouldn't let her keep any of her Jewish friends H: Lower court agreed, should get annulment; Appellate Division reversed the decision; Court of Appeals reversed, she got annulment
Fiction of Oneness At marriage 2 become 1 Women were dependent on their husbands, submission
Stuart v Board of Supervisors (MD 1972) Name change is a ‘habit’, not a requirement. State of MD agrees; W doesn't have to take H's last name
Doctrine of Necessities W could buy a necessity and put it under husband name and credit; husband was held accountable
Sharpe Furniture Inc. v. John and Karen Buckstaff (Wis. 1980) H: H should pay for W's debt Concurrence: Same should go for W when H purchases something
State v. Rhodes (1888) At commom law, W was the property of H H: H can hit wife but not use an object wider than thumb
Trammel v. US (1980) I: Can a H bar his W's testimony against him in a criminal trial when W is willing to testify? H: No, W's willingness to testify in criminal proceeding demonstrates marriage is in dispair
Williams v. Marsh F: W got TPO for H because H beat her causing hospitalization I: Was husband deprived of due process? H: No, TPO only temporary to ensure safety of wife
Williams v. Alaska (2006) F: H under TRO for DV against W, both want H to move back I: What should court do? H: H is allowed to move back to family
Warren v. State of Georgia (1985) I: Can a H be guilty of raping his W? H: No marital exception in criminal statute, H can be charged with rape
People v. Wallace (CA 2004) I: Should H pay/be convicted for destruction of W's property? H: Yes, fine and time in jail
Romeo v. Romeo F: H works for W; H robbed and killed I: Can W get worker's comp for the dependent benefits? H: Yes, she gets the money (very rare, only certain circumstances allow this)
Cladd v. State of Florida F: H busts into W's apartment, dangles her from balcony, W calls police, H steals things and runs off, later caught by police H: H should pay W back because they lived separately
Criminal Conversion If a MAN had proof of his wife having sexual intercourse with another person, you could sue that man that your wife had sex with. Reinforces wife as husband’s property; Old justification—b/c man may have to raise and support another man’s child.
Alienation of Affection If an outsiders interferes in a marriage in such a way to leer one of the spouses away from the other, the other spouse is due some sort of compensation.
Fault Grounds for Divorce Abuse, Disertion, Adultery (no witness needed)
Edwards v. Edwards H: grants husband divorce request based on cruelty.(Husband testified that he was worried,caused anxiety). They also awarded ALL of the assets to the husband AND their children because they saw him as a more fit parent because she abandoned them
Sinha v. Sinha (PA 1987) I. Basis on intent to separate.F. 2 Indians in India get married...H moves and after being abroad for awhile he wants divorce claiming they have already been separated. H. Not grounds for divorce.. When leaving india H did not have intention of divorce
Twyman v. Twyman Concurrent/dissents: “in marriage have to accept all kinds of behavior”
Community property 50/50 split; economic partnership
Equitable distribution/common law may include fault, not 50/50
Separation Alimony From period of separation until final divorce order entered
Permanent Alimony doesn't mean forever, alimony awarded by court
Reimbursement Alimony Reimburses spouse for sacrifice in marriage (education); short term marriage
Rehabilitation Alimony Long term marriage and employment skills sacrificed, alimony gender neutral
Congdon v. Congdon H: H has to pay alimony
Created by: Jnett
Popular Law sets

 

 



Voices

Use these flashcards to help memorize information. Look at the large card and try to recall what is on the other side. Then click the card to flip it. If you knew the answer, click the green Know box. Otherwise, click the red Don't know box.

When you've placed seven or more cards in the Don't know box, click "retry" to try those cards again.

If you've accidentally put the card in the wrong box, just click on the card to take it out of the box.

You can also use your keyboard to move the cards as follows:

If you are logged in to your account, this website will remember which cards you know and don't know so that they are in the same box the next time you log in.

When you need a break, try one of the other activities listed below the flashcards like Matching, Snowman, or Hungry Bug. Although it may feel like you're playing a game, your brain is still making more connections with the information to help you out.

To see how well you know the information, try the Quiz or Test activity.

Pass complete!
"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards