https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group Style Advice for Fashion Lovers en-US Sun, 19 Apr 2026 03:10:58 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/search.php https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2221520 Sat, 04 Sep 2021 04:32:30 +0000 Barbara Diane 2221520@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>No knowledge here but a fascinating topic. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2220148 Sun, 29 Aug 2021 16:29:42 +0000 Stagiaire Fash 2220148@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Marilyn, that certainly supports MaMary’s idea that the prohibition on remarrying was about making sure the ex wouldn’t be destitute late in life. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219988 Sat, 28 Aug 2021 22:33:37 +0000 Marilyn 2219988@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>This has sparked an interesting discussion. Different times for sure. She wasn't prohibited from remarriage in this statute....just him. She certainly wouldn't have cared. They remained such good friends that he stayed with her and her husband while visiting. In fact I remember her shopping for socks for him....quite wife like. LOL . </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219971 Sat, 28 Aug 2021 20:54:36 +0000 Stagiaire Fash 2219971@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I know (knew) another school teacher in rural Southern Minnesota at the beginning of the 20TH century—my grandma. She went to 2 years of college to get her degree, and taught until she got married and they moved to N Dakota. There are so many things I wish I could ask her, but she passed on 32 years ago. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219970 Sat, 28 Aug 2021 20:46:44 +0000 MsMary 2219970@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Meant to say married women. But generally an unmarried school teacher would only be paid enough to keep herself alive while she waited for a husband. I remember in the Little House books, Laura Ingalls roomed with a local family and certainly wouldn't have had the means to buy property. And not many people had bank accounts back then.</p> <p>Just asked Hubby and he never heard of such a thing. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219668 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 22:11:10 +0000 Stagiaire Fash 2219668@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I’d be interested in hearing what your husband says!<br /> I don’t quite understand how the whole “women can’t own property or have bank accounts” thing worked in the cases of, for example, school teachers who did not live with their families. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219662 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 22:05:12 +0000 MsMary 2219662@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Back in the day, women often were not permitted to have their own money and/or property, and therefore a woman who chose to divorce an adulterous spouse would be at risk if the former husband predeceased her. He'd be required to pay alimony during his life but if he remarried then the new wife would inherit upon his death. I suspect the "no remarriage for adulterers without permission from the court" statutes were intended to address that, and I imagine the court might well condition such permission of the drafting of a will to protect the former wife.</p> <p>But yes, ineffectual and conducive to uncertainty for sure, if such a prohibition could be avoided simply by leaving the state.</p> <p>Fascinating. They certainly never taught us about that in law school. I'll have to ask my husband if he's ever heard of such a thing. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219656 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:46:27 +0000 Stagiaire Fash 2219656@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Mary, but it also says nobody really enforced it “Statutes prohibiting remarriage have been criticized as against sound public policy, as generally ineffectual, and as conducive to litigation and un- certainty”.<br /> Or do they mean re-marriage to each other? Anyway, once money enters into it (wonder how big that trust was), I guess would pull up whatever they could to prevent it from going to someone else. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219652 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:33:03 +0000 MsMary 2219652@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Hmmm... I guess back in the day if you were found guilty of adultery you could be prohibited from remarrying. Here's an old law review article that mentions it being a statutory thing in Washington D.C.&nbsp;<a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4850&amp;context=ilj">https://www.repository.law.ind.....ontext=ilj</a> </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219625 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 19:38:18 +0000 rachylou 2219625@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I guess no one ever bothered (or rarely) tried to enforce the conditions? </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219552 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:58:13 +0000 MsMary 2219552@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>So interesting. These days, at least in my state, the very definition of "divorce" (or "dissolution of marriage," which is what we call it here) is that both parties are free to remarry. And yes, back in the day before no fault divorce it was quite common for the parties to lie about the grounds for a divorce. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219465 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 09:09:07 +0000 Stagiaire Fash 2219465@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Interesting that they each broke this condition and evidently neither cared to do anything about that. I remember when “no fault divorce” came to my little Ohio town in the 70s. This must be what you had to do before that. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219444 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 04:46:30 +0000 Marilyn 2219444@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Jules......Thanks. It didn't occur to me to google. Yes, my husband thinks they lied to make it easier. They definitely weren't suited to one another. ......probably the result of marrying too young. They both remarried.<br /> AJ.....that's an interesting connection. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219439 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 04:23:39 +0000 AJ 2219439@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I am not a lawyer but I immediately thought of the Bible when I read the section in your photo.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>I think this is a good explanation of it:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.gracechurch.org/about/distinctives/divorce-and-remarriage">https://www.gracechurch.org/ab.....remarriage</a></p> </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219438 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 04:20:41 +0000 Jules 2219438@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>IANAL but I am nosy human so I googled. Based on this it sounds like it was a common condition in divorces involving adultery. And I believe that sometimes people may have agreed to falsely cite adultery because it was an easy/fast way to get divorce (I think this may have been a plot point in Mad Men? Lol). </p> <p><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/25710196" rel="nofollow">https://www.jstor.org/stable/25710196</a></p> <p>Anyway, my personal suspicion might be that a person who agreed to these terms and remained lifelong friends with their ex might have realized they were not suited to marriage for one reason or another, perhaps as a matter of their sexuality. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219408 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 00:52:30 +0000 Marilyn 2219408@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p><div>Thanks so much, Mary! :)</div><div><br /> </div><div>I've attached a photo. The part I'm curious about is towards the end where it says, " the defendant is forbidden to marry any person other than the plaintiff during the lifetime of the plaintiff......".  This would be New York in 1954.  My husband doubts there was adultery....they divorced in their 20's and remained very good lifelong friends saying they were better as friends.  That's neither here or there.   We're just curious about this rather odd clause.<br /> </div> </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219304 Thu, 26 Aug 2021 18:38:07 +0000 MsMary 2219304@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>My husband is a family law specialist who's been practicing for a very long time. What's the clause? I can ask him. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/any-american-lawyers-in-the-group#post-2219288 Thu, 26 Aug 2021 17:44:44 +0000 Marilyn 2219288@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Just wondering if we have any American lawyers in the group who are familiar with 50's law. My question is regarding a fascinating/curious clause in a divorce settlement from the 50's so purely just interest in an old family document. Just wondering if it was a standard clause at that time or something specific. So, if you're in the know about such things I'd love to hear from you. </p>