Let’s say that a certain Doper got married in Reno, Nevada. He now resides in Massachusetts, and is entertaining notions of divorcing his wife. Which state’s divorce laws are observed?
Short answer: MA. There is a more complicated answer that I don’t have time to type right now.
I believe it’s the state where you are a resident and where you file. My ex lived in NY; I lived in CA. He filed first so I had to get an attorney in NY. I would make myself familiar with the division of property laws in both states of residence (MA and Nevada?) because that could affect you re: any future pensions, real estate, etc.
So people fly interstate for a “Nevada wedding”. Do they do the same for simple and quick divorces? Is that commonplace?
This is the more complicated part. Yes, you can go to a state and stay there for the required residency period but that will only get the marriage dissolved. The court will not have personal jurisdiction over the non-resident spouse, and therefore, will be unable to divide property. http://www.law.pitt.edu/wasserman/law2a.htm.
Similarly, with minor exceptions, if you have kids, the children will have to live in the new state for six months before the new state will have jurisdiction to determine custody. http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1920_69/uccja68.htm; http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/uccjea97.htm
So, you can get an ex parte divorce by moving to any state you like and waiting the residency period, but you’ll get just that–a divorce. If you want a property division, spousal support, or a custody determination, that probably won’t work.
Gfactor said the first part of what I felt called to add here: There’s a difference between a divorce proper, the simple termination of a marriage, and the ancillary effects of it: who gets what, who pays whom what, and so on.
Any U.S. state can grant a divorce that must be honored in any other state. However, each state is “the forum state” for questions of property within it and support of its residents. In other words, Joe, now living in Massachusetts, is legally married to (but living apart from) Sue, now living in Georgia. They own, jointly, a house in Georgia, stock in a corporation chartered in Delaware, and part-interest in a shopping center located in Arizona. Joe, wanting to remarry, flies to Nevada, establishes six weeks’ residency, and gets a Nevada divorce.
They’re now legally divorced in all 50 states. But Georgia gets to say what support and alimony should be paid, because Sue’s a legal resident there. Delaware’s laws cover who gets what interest in the stock (barring any other agreement they’ve made over it that is legally binding). Arizona’s laws govern the disposition of their joint part-interest in the shopping center.
There are some catches to this. Even though the personal jurisdiction requirement is relaxed, notice requirements are not. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=336&invol=674 Therefore, if you had an address for the other spouse, you’d have to give them actual notice. Otherwise, you’d probably have to do some sort of publication of notice.
Not so. http://www.divorcesource.com/research/edj/trusts/98dec142.shtml; http://www.divorcenet.com/states/texas/txart22 If the court has personal jurisdiction over the parties, it has jurisdiction to distribute their marital property.
OTOH, *probate *courts, traditionally lack subject matter jurisdiction over out of state property. So if there is an out-of state property in an estate, the person administering the estate must open an ancillary estate in the state in which the property sits.
If this is true . . . then this is true:
But this is irrelevant. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/495/604.html
This is true in one sense. If, as Polycarp’s hypothetical suggests, the wife has no ties to Nevada and is not served with a summons while in Nevada, the Nevada court won’t be able to divide the couple’s property in other states. It is unclear to me whether the court can dived property in the forum state. This link suggests that the court can. Jurisdiction in such a case would be in rem. I’ve not seen a case on point, however.
I had to laugh at the title of this thread. As if there ever WAS such a thing!! <ROFL>
Reminds me of a dig that a law professor (representing an opponent of my client) once wrote about an argument that I had crafted: 'The argument is terribly simple and simply terrible."
I won that argument, but lost the battle.