Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Matrimonial StrategistLJN NewslettersNewsSections

Marital Fault and Alimony

By Laurence J. Cutler, Komal S. Ullah and Olga Kats-Chalfant
June 28, 2007

Alimony is defined as 'the periodic payments one spouse might be ordered to pay another following the dissolution of their marriage.' Black's Law Dictionary. 6th ed. 2002. The concept of alimony is well-rooted in traditional notions of female
gender roles, primarily the notion that women lacked the ability or resources to provide for themselves and were dependent on a male figure to take care of them, both financially and emotionally. See Robert Kirkman Collins: The Theory of Marital Residuals: Applying an Income Adjustment Calculus to the Enigma of Alimony. 24 Harv. Women's L.J. (2001). Historically speaking, if a woman were left in
a position of separation (or ultimate divorce) from her husband, she was left with virtually no ability to be economically independent because her husband had been deemed the primary caretaker of her and the family throughout the couple's marriage. With the passage of time, the distinction between divorce and separation was done away with and alimony began to be awarded in all cases. Id.

Social norms dictated that a husband had an affirmative duty to support his wife, even if they no longer lived together. However, this 'duty' only extended to the 'blameless' wife, or the wife who could have no marital fault attributed to her for the dissolution of the marriage. Therefore, if the wife were to be found guilty of committing marital fault, her husband's obligation to take care of her ceased. As such, alimony as we know it today evolved from very traditional notions of gender roles in society.

Fault and Alimony

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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? Image

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 Image

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.