Legal reasoning would ask the question, if the license was issued on the authority of town/city clerk, why would it's dissolution have to go any higher? I am not a proponent of divorce being made easier, but since the government stepped in and took over the issuance and dissolution of the contracts, lawyers have been the real winners.
Jeff, I agree with you, but the modern cavalier attitude toward divorce strikes me as a societal problem that will only be corrected by a societal change of heart.
100% yes Howard. Divorce is a difficult issue that injures most of the parties involved. Marriage should not be entered into lightly and neither should divorce (with the added caveat of situations of safety and well-being taking precedent). Divorce is another issue that is real, prevalent, and in need of address, just not through more government entanglements and legal profit opportunities.
I personally do not believe that government has any business in marriage at all. Marriage is not a mandate, so neither should getting a license to prove it, or going through a court to end it. A simple voluntary form could be easily offered online to be filled out and saved to the county database, and printed out and filed for the couple at no/very low charge (say $5).
If five years later that couple decides to dissolve the union, and can do so amicably in regards to property and the like, they should be able to go to that same database and update that the union has been dissolved.
I have no issue with lawyers and courts if that resolution cannot be met and both parties choose to have legal mediation, but that should be the only reason.
Modern divorce is a business deal of the highest magnitude. It should not be a sporting match where the party with the best lawyer gains the most. The Court should continue to see that this does not happen.
It is already possible. It is called an Uncontested Divorce. If both parties are in agreement, then they both have to sign the appropriate papers with their attorney and the divorce is done "on the papers".
That usually still requires an attorney Cheryl and the purchase of an Index Number and Note of Issue, both of which have filing fees. The Index Number alone is over $200. Since the Judge signs off on the Judgment of Divorce, I'd say it still goes through the courts. Maybe that's all changed since I worked for an attorney doing divorces in NY but I'm sure the courts still get their cut. Maybe the fees go to New York or the County? It is possible to file pro bono but not easy to get though the paperwork unless you know what you're doing and you'd still have to pay the filing fees. Here's a link with directions for a quick divorce, none of which seems quick and definitely not easy:
"Legal reasoning would ask the question, if the license was issued on the authority of town/city clerk, why would it's dissolution have to go any higher? "
For one thing, Jeff, because divorce is far more complex legally than marriage. No one usually has to decide who gets the house, the kid, and the Lamborghini at the wedding ceremony!
". . .all marriages don't have houses, kids or Lamborghinis."
Well, those couples that don't have these things, as well as most of those that do, probably share contractual debt. How should that be adjudicated at the city clerk level?
I think the more instances you list, the more the point is made how the system is skewed. Divorce is multibillion dollar industry and regulations added to regulations added to regulations don't do much to solve the issue of a crumbling institution, but they do create new and lucrative opportunities for legal representation. You also touched on one the main drivers of marital discord, finances. There is no emphasis in our society on realistic budgeting and debt control in personal finances. I would bet the number of divorces in this country between two parties that are debt free is statistically negligible.
An accountant can figure accounts,. but an accountant cannot alter contracts. Mr FreeMarket Corp. wants to know exactly who's going to pay on the shared dept of a dissolved marriage , and who can be sued for non-performance on the debt. An accountant can't perform that service, nor effect any contractual obligation.
The bottom line here is that in our society, marriage is a legal contractual agreement, for good reason. Only the courts may order or dissolve contracts.
The regulation of terms to be adjudicated through the court system is government interfering with the free market system and giving those who are the only ones authorized to represent the clients a decided advantage in the "market". Other than mediation, which is limited in it's scope and application, lawyers have no competition, therefore it is not a "free market"
'The regulation of terms to be adjudicated through the court system is government interfering with the free market system. . ."
Without the rule of law, including contracts, there can be no free market,. Paradoxical, I know..
"lawyers have no competition, therefore it is not a "free market"
No one is required to employ a lawyer. You're welcome to proceed pro se. Of course it's said that one who has himself as an attorney has a fool for a client. . .
"Mr FreeMarket Corp. wants to know exactly who's going to pay on the shared dept of a dissolved marriage"
Easy -- who signed the contract?
It's no hard task to go after two people separately if needed in case of default.
Most divorces can be resolved amicability (you take the dog, I get the Galaxie 500) ... especially if the stress of paying for lawyers can be taken out of the equation ... when they can't, then court is still a recourse.
Would anyone here care to be held responsible for the debts of an estranged spouse? How would you prevent it without a legally recognized divorce decree?
“Divorce is another issue that is real, prevalent, and in need of address, just not through more government entanglements and legal profit opportunities.”
I‘m curious….
How would you go about “addressing divorce” without “government entanglements?”
Lock feuding couples up together until they reach an agreement or kill each other?
As Julie suggests, there are circumstances- not uncommon circumstances that propel a divorce settlement beyond the scope of do-it-yourself. Many marriages end with two (or more) parties incapable of speaking terms no less the ability or desire to cooperate in dispensing mutual assets, offspring or even pets.
The pitfall in this discussion seems rooted in two subjective blind-spots: dislike of lawyers and failure to see beyond personal experience.
I would concur that marriages of short duration, lacking extensive mutual assets, sans children with both parties able to step outside personal feelings over whatever grievance or grievances led to the decision to dissolve the marriage; such conditions could preclude the services of two attorneys and a day in court.
That said, it remains necessary for a judge to rule on the dissolution, granting an official document to legally end the marriage and indemnify the two parties in lieu of any future claims.
As much as Scott has pointed out that few people are considering separation while walking down the aisle, a prenuptial agreement is not such a crass notion.
C.M., you bring up an excellent point about prenuptial agreements. As long as the institution has been reduced to contractual status, make prenuptials mandatory. Every good contract has an exit plan in place prior to execution. I know it involves more legislation but it would move expensive, drawn out legal proceedings from the end of the marriage to brief, less expensive agreements before the marriage. It also provides an opportunity for both parties to take a hard look at the long term ramifications of their union. As children and assets are added, it would be up to the parties to update the contract much like a will. Again, it opens up another avenue for legal profit, but it would be far less expensive and time consuming for the clients.
Legal reasoning would ask the
Legal reasoning would ask the question, if the license was issued on the authority of town/city clerk, why would it's dissolution have to go any higher? I am not a proponent of divorce being made easier, but since the government stepped in and took over the issuance and dissolution of the contracts, lawyers have been the real winners.
Jeff, I agree with you, but
Jeff, I agree with you, but the modern cavalier attitude toward divorce strikes me as a societal problem that will only be corrected by a societal change of heart.
100% yes Howard. Divorce is
100% yes Howard. Divorce is a difficult issue that injures most of the parties involved. Marriage should not be entered into lightly and neither should divorce (with the added caveat of situations of safety and well-being taking precedent). Divorce is another issue that is real, prevalent, and in need of address, just not through more government entanglements and legal profit opportunities.
I personally do not believe
I personally do not believe that government has any business in marriage at all. Marriage is not a mandate, so neither should getting a license to prove it, or going through a court to end it. A simple voluntary form could be easily offered online to be filled out and saved to the county database, and printed out and filed for the couple at no/very low charge (say $5).
If five years later that couple decides to dissolve the union, and can do so amicably in regards to property and the like, they should be able to go to that same database and update that the union has been dissolved.
I have no issue with lawyers and courts if that resolution cannot be met and both parties choose to have legal mediation, but that should be the only reason.
Modern divorce is a business
Modern divorce is a business deal of the highest magnitude. It should not be a sporting match where the party with the best lawyer gains the most. The Court should continue to see that this does not happen.
It is already possible. It
It is already possible. It is called an Uncontested Divorce. If both parties are in agreement, then they both have to sign the appropriate papers with their attorney and the divorce is done "on the papers".
That usually still requires
That usually still requires an attorney Cheryl and the purchase of an Index Number and Note of Issue, both of which have filing fees. The Index Number alone is over $200. Since the Judge signs off on the Judgment of Divorce, I'd say it still goes through the courts. Maybe that's all changed since I worked for an attorney doing divorces in NY but I'm sure the courts still get their cut. Maybe the fees go to New York or the County? It is possible to file pro bono but not easy to get though the paperwork unless you know what you're doing and you'd still have to pay the filing fees. Here's a link with directions for a quick divorce, none of which seems quick and definitely not easy:
http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Quick-Divorce-in-New-York
"Legal reasoning would ask
"Legal reasoning would ask the question, if the license was issued on the authority of town/city clerk, why would it's dissolution have to go any higher? "
For one thing, Jeff, because divorce is far more complex legally than marriage. No one usually has to decide who gets the house, the kid, and the Lamborghini at the wedding ceremony!
For one thing Scott, all
For one thing Scott, all marriages don't have houses, kids or Lamborghinis.
". . .all marriages don't
". . .all marriages don't have houses, kids or Lamborghinis."
Well, those couples that don't have these things, as well as most of those that do, probably share contractual debt. How should that be adjudicated at the city clerk level?
Scott -- watch the video --
Scott -- watch the video -- near the end he says basically, "hire an accountant. They're better than math than lawyers anyway."
I think the more instances
I think the more instances you list, the more the point is made how the system is skewed. Divorce is multibillion dollar industry and regulations added to regulations added to regulations don't do much to solve the issue of a crumbling institution, but they do create new and lucrative opportunities for legal representation. You also touched on one the main drivers of marital discord, finances. There is no emphasis in our society on realistic budgeting and debt control in personal finances. I would bet the number of divorces in this country between two parties that are debt free is statistically negligible.
An accountant can figure
An accountant can figure accounts,. but an accountant cannot alter contracts. Mr FreeMarket Corp. wants to know exactly who's going to pay on the shared dept of a dissolved marriage , and who can be sued for non-performance on the debt. An accountant can't perform that service, nor effect any contractual obligation.
"Divorce is multibillion
"Divorce is multibillion dollar industry and regulations added to regulations added to regulations "
Jeff, how is this not the free market responding to consumer demand?
They're [accountants] better
They're [accountants] better than math than lawyers anyway."
I'll say! Look at Arthur Andersen!
The bottom line here is that
The bottom line here is that in our society, marriage is a legal contractual agreement, for good reason. Only the courts may order or dissolve contracts.
The regulation of terms to be
The regulation of terms to be adjudicated through the court system is government interfering with the free market system and giving those who are the only ones authorized to represent the clients a decided advantage in the "market". Other than mediation, which is limited in it's scope and application, lawyers have no competition, therefore it is not a "free market"
'The regulation of terms to
'The regulation of terms to be adjudicated through the court system is government interfering with the free market system. . ."
Without the rule of law, including contracts, there can be no free market,. Paradoxical, I know..
"lawyers have no competition, therefore it is not a "free market"
No one is required to employ a lawyer. You're welcome to proceed pro se. Of course it's said that one who has himself as an attorney has a fool for a client. . .
"Mr FreeMarket Corp. wants to
"Mr FreeMarket Corp. wants to know exactly who's going to pay on the shared dept of a dissolved marriage"
Easy -- who signed the contract?
It's no hard task to go after two people separately if needed in case of default.
Most divorces can be resolved amicability (you take the dog, I get the Galaxie 500) ... especially if the stress of paying for lawyers can be taken out of the equation ... when they can't, then court is still a recourse.
song reference, for those who don't know it ...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb_juTPQJUc]
'Most divorces can be
'Most divorces can be resolved amicability.. . . '
Indeed, some can. But to have legal standing, they require the imprimatur of the court.
In my case, I didn't have an attorney -- I got to keep the albums and was awarded the bird.
Would anyone here care to be
Would anyone here care to be held responsible for the debts of an estranged spouse? How would you prevent it without a legally recognized divorce decree?
A court is not required to
A court is not required to dissolve a contract.
"A court is not required to
"A court is not required to dissolve a contract."
Sometimes, if all parties agree.
Alvin, see what happens when you get re-married without a court-ordered divorce decree. (Excepting Utah, perhaps.)
“Divorce is another issue
“Divorce is another issue that is real, prevalent, and in need of address, just not through more government entanglements and legal profit opportunities.”
I‘m curious….
How would you go about “addressing divorce” without “government entanglements?”
Lock feuding couples up together until they reach an agreement or kill each other?
As Julie suggests, there are
As Julie suggests, there are circumstances- not uncommon circumstances that propel a divorce settlement beyond the scope of do-it-yourself. Many marriages end with two (or more) parties incapable of speaking terms no less the ability or desire to cooperate in dispensing mutual assets, offspring or even pets.
The pitfall in this discussion seems rooted in two subjective blind-spots: dislike of lawyers and failure to see beyond personal experience.
I would concur that marriages of short duration, lacking extensive mutual assets, sans children with both parties able to step outside personal feelings over whatever grievance or grievances led to the decision to dissolve the marriage; such conditions could preclude the services of two attorneys and a day in court.
That said, it remains necessary for a judge to rule on the dissolution, granting an official document to legally end the marriage and indemnify the two parties in lieu of any future claims.
As much as Scott has pointed out that few people are considering separation while walking down the aisle, a prenuptial agreement is not such a crass notion.
C.M., you bring up an
C.M., you bring up an excellent point about prenuptial agreements. As long as the institution has been reduced to contractual status, make prenuptials mandatory. Every good contract has an exit plan in place prior to execution. I know it involves more legislation but it would move expensive, drawn out legal proceedings from the end of the marriage to brief, less expensive agreements before the marriage. It also provides an opportunity for both parties to take a hard look at the long term ramifications of their union. As children and assets are added, it would be up to the parties to update the contract much like a will. Again, it opens up another avenue for legal profit, but it would be far less expensive and time consuming for the clients.
". . . dislike of lawyers and
". . . dislike of lawyers and failure to see beyond personal experience."
I don't just dislike lawyers C.M., I fathered and raised one!
Marriage has been a contract
Marriage has been a contract since inception. Research dowry sometime.