To what extent is &quot;no fault&quot; divorce truly no fault? In the 1970s, one after another of the U.S. states switched to &quot;no fault&quot; divorce. This is, divorce could be granted to couples without either one of them proving that the other had committed certain offenses that qualified as &quot;faults&quot; (adultery, desertion, etc.) Yet, my understanding is that &quot;marital behavior&quot; is a factor in determining the terms of the divorce. That is alimony, property division, child custody, etc. Are these actually &quot;fault&quot; issues? To what extent are the above items distributed on &quot;equitable&quot; (economic) grounds, and to what extent are they decided on &quot;fault&quot; grounds relating to marital conduct? This question could apply to any of the United States, but the ones I'm most interested in are the ones I've lived in, that is, New York and California.
The Adoption Of No Fault Divorce In The U.S. Every U.S. state has no fault divorce, and in almost every state, this is available unilaterally even if one spouse doesn't want to end the marriage. California was the first U.S. state to adopt no fault divorce, which it did in 1970 under legislation adopted in 1969. New York State was the very last U.S. state to adopt &quot;no fault divorce&quot;, and it did so in October of 2010. But in Mississippi and Tennessee mutual consent is required for a no fault divorce to be granted (although, in Tennessee mutual consent is needed only in certain circumstances and a unilateral no fault divorce is effectively permitted after a two year waiting period), and in many states that have both no fault and fault based grounds for divorce, a fault based divorce can be granted more quickly than a unilateral no fault divorce. (Wikipedia incorrectly states that mutual consent is required for a no fault divorce in South Dakota, but lack of mutual consent merely delays entry of a divorce decree in South Dakota in a no fault divorce by thirty days.) Fault based divorces are not available in the States of Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Nebraska, Montana, Missouri, Minnesota, Michigan, Kentucky, Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, Hawaii, Florida, Colorado and California. In other U.S. states and in the District of Columbia, both fault based and no fault based divorces are available, although no fault divorces are more common than fault based divorces in every U.S. state and in the District of Columbia. Economic Waste All or almost all U.S. states recognize the concept of &quot;economic waste&quot; of marital property. So, if, in anticipation of a divorce or during its pendency, a spouse, for example, destroys property that this spouse controls, or otherwise intentionally or recklessly disposes of it for far less than what it is worth, the loss of value to the marital estate from the act of &quot;economic waste&quot; is charged to the offending spouse. In some states, merely grossly negligent or negligent conduct can constitute economic waste as well, but that would be a minority rule. Conduct Relevant To The Best Interests Of The Child Parenting time and parental responsibilities are universally adjudicated under a &quot;best interests of the child&quot; standard. So, conduct that is specifically relevant to the parent-child relationship of the parties (e.g. driving drunk with the kids in the car, or not feeding the kids regularly), may be considered with respect to decisions on parenting time and parental responsibilities (a.k.a. custody and visitation determinations), on a case by case, fact intensive basis. But conduct of a parent that does not directly impact parent-child interactions of either spouse (e.g. an adulterous affair of a spouse of which the children have no knowledge), may not be considered for that purpose. Marital Misconduct Or Marital Fault Is Usually Not Considered For Child Support Due to federal welfare benefit legislation that sets requirements for child support laws to make states eligible for federal benefits, child support is determined by a formula (not exactly the same in every state but quite similar in practice) that doesn't consider marital misconduct or marital fault either. There are two main exceptions to this rule. First, in a rule similar to the economic waste rule, income can be imputed to a parent of a child for purposes of calculating child support if a parent intentionally earns less than the parent is capable of earning. Second, the guidelines do not apply beyond a threshold child support amount for high income parents, in which cases the child support award is discretionary and similar to an alimony award which may consider fault in some states where fault may be considered for alimony purposes in those cases. The exact dollar amount of the threshold varies from state to state and from year to year, but is typically a combined gross income of both parents on the order of $75,000 to $200,000 per year. Marital Fault or Marital Misconduct In Property Division and Alimony Awards States vary in the extent that marital fault may be considered for purposes of property division and for purposes of alimony awards. In states that consider fault for property division and alimony, usually both no fault divorce and fault based divorce options are available, and marital fault or martial misconduct may usually be considered for these purposes only in fault based divorce filings. Colorado and a majority of other U.S. states do not considering marital misconduct or marital fault (other than &quot;economic waste&quot; or conduct relevant to parenting) in either property division or alimony awards. Some states openly consider marital fault in property division and alimony awards. A handful of states (most notably North Carolina and Mississippi) have &quot;heart balm&quot; torts like &quot;alienation of affections&quot; that effectively allow someone to sue the &quot;other man&quot; or &quot;other woman&quot; who had an affair with their spouse for money damages. Mostly, but not entirely, martial fault or marital misconduct other than economic waste is a permissible consideration in &quot;red states&quot; in the Great Plains, Appalachia, and the South. Marital fault based tort awards are rare but allowed in theory in Illinois, Hawaii and New Mexico, but restrictions on proof of liability for theses torts make it exceedingly difficult to prevail in an alienation of affections case and recover substantial monetary damages. It is also possible to bring these tort suits with a lower standard of proof in Utah and South Dakota, which continue to have actively litigated alienation of affections suits, although the tort is not used as often in these states as it is in North Carolina and Mississippi. Some states that do not have heart balm torts, however, can still consider martial fault in property division and in alimony awards, at least in fault based divorce cases. California In California, the community property regime does not consider marital fault in property division. This is also true in all other states that have full fledged community property regimes: Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin California does not consider marital misconduct or marital fault in alimony awards either. New York State The legal culture in New York State to some extent probably does implicitly consider marital fault, since intuitions of legal practitioners and judges don't change as quickly as the law does, even though it should not consider this since consideration of marital fault in property division and alimony was abolished as a consideration in New York State in 2010. New York State's common law derived system of equitable property division is much more discretionary than that of California, which makes it easier for fault based intuitions of legal practitioners and judges to intrude on how cases are resolved sub silentio. But marital fault or marital misconduct (other than &quot;economic waste&quot; discussed above) is not among the factors that may be considered in New York State by statute. Old case law to the contrary has been superseded legislatively. Appellate Review oF Marital Fault Consideration Is Difficult To Perfect One reason that pre-no fault practice can have enduring influence on post-fault decision making by judges in New York (most of whom practiced law for most of their careers pre-2010 when property division and alimony awards in New York considered fault), is that there are few effective means of overturning on appeal a decision that covertly considers these factors. This is because, in practice, it is quite hard to review on appeal an improper consideration of marital fault in a New York State property division or alimony award. The court has broad discretion to equitably divide property and to make an alimony award, considering fact rich evidence that can reveal marital fault incidentally. And, in a fault based divorce (which still exists in New York along with no fault divorces), the evidence may have even been admitted properly and may have resulted in judicial findings of fact, for the other lawful purpose of determining valid grounds for a fault based divorce were present. Also, divorce decrees are entered by judges, and for appellate purposes, unless a judge expressly states in an oral or written ruling that an impermissible factor was considered, a judge is presumed to have ignored legally irrelevant evidence presented to the judge in a hearing or pleadings, even if evidence of marital fault is improperly admitted into evidence over the other party's objection, or is admitted into evidence without a preserved evidentiary objection. Also, often a judge will not make particularly detailed findings of fact or conduct details analysis of the court's reasoning in writing or orally, beyond a bare minimum of factual detail necessary to state what the find decision of the court was in the case and to make jurisdictionally required findings of fact. Judges are busy and they often due the bare minimum of work to resolve cases in ordinary divorces that come before them to decide. So, usually, the fact that marital fault evidence was presented at a permanent orders hearing in a divorce will not provide a basis for reversing a decision on appeal, even though it is plausible under the circumstances that the judge's decision on property division or alimony was influenced by marital fault.
As Tom says and these guys reiterate (I'm quoting those guys), "Employment relationships are presumed to be “at-will” in all U.S. states except Montana. The U.S. is one of a handful of countries where employment is predominantly at-will". Montana (Dept. of Labor and Industry) also states that they are the only ones in the US like that. Montana Code 39-2-904(1)(b) states that a discharge is unlawful if "the discharge was not for good cause and the employee had completed the employer's probationary period of employment". (2)(a) then states that "During a probationary period of employment, the employment may be terminated at the will of either the employer or the employee on notice to the other for any reason or for no reason". There is a presumptive 6 month probationary period in case an employer say nothing, but it could be longer or shorter (it can be 7 years for university professors, and I don't find anything in the code preventing an employer from setting the probationary period at 50 years).
The fault lies with the people who vandalized your house. In general, whoever causes you damage is responsible (liable) for that damage. This is true whether or not you are selling your house, having guests over, letting a friend stay over for a night or a week, or whatever the circumstance is. Insurance is there to cover many such losses: if a friend trashes your house in a drunken rage, your insurance will cover the damage, but they will invoke the doctrine of subrogation whereby they get to go after the friend, and you have to cooperate. In a situation where nobody has a clue who did the damage, the only possible way that the agent has any responsibility is if they were negligent in their duty to take care of the house. For your specific case, you'd need to discuss the forensic facts with your attorney. But generally speaking, the issue would be whether the agent had breached his/her professional duty of care, which is best understood as comparing his actions (or lack) compares to actions of other professionals in the same circumstance. If a house has 3 or 4 sets of visitors simultaneously, it is really not possible for an agent to supervise all of them at once. So the question would be, was this the result of one concentrated vandalism attack, or serial vandalism. The former is more in the realm of "stuff happens", and the latter is indicative of an endemic lack of care. To repeat, the fault lies with the miscreants who vandalized your house. You, or your insurance company, may nevertheless have to bear the financial burden. Your insurance company will certainly have an interest in spreading responsibility to the realty firm, if warranted by the facts.
At the federal level, there is no real equivalent to what you're describing. A probable cause hearing evaluates the government's evidence in a similar way, but it doesn't ask whether a reasonable jury would convict. The closest I can think of is a Rule 29 motion, which does ask that question, but not until trial has already begun. You typically make the motion at the close of the government's case, and (if it was not successful) again at the close of your own, though I've heard tales of judges granting the motion at the end of the government's opening statement. The states all have their own rules, but they're generally pretty similar to the federal rules in this respect, as I understand it. I don't know of any state that allows the kind of motion you're talking about, in criminal cases, at least. In civil cases, I think everyone has Rule 12(b)(6) motions, which ask the court for a pretrial determination that there's no set of facts that could establish liability on the plaintiff's theory of the case.
If the spouse of the US president filed for divorce, would a) the President have any claim of immunity from any litigation that followed (e.g. the division of assets in the matrimonial pot, child custody etc.), The President could claim it, but the President wouldn't win. Notably, a number of state governors and mayors have divorced while in office, and other foreign heads of state have been divorced while in office. For example, a U.K. court recently handled the divorce of a UAE monarch (over his objections to jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds), applying the same common law principles of head of state and sovereign immunities that exist in U.S. law and concluded that it had the authority to move forward with the case. Also, any Presidential divorce would take place in state court, not in federal court. Federal courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over divorce and custody cases (under the &quot;domestic relations exception&quot; to federal jurisdiction), so the civil action could not be removed to federal court, unlike federal criminal cases involving the official duties of the President and unlike civil cases over which the federal courts have jurisdiction. b) would all the proceedings be fully held in private, This would be in the reasonable discretion of the judge. It would not be a matter of right, but it is quite plausible that a judge might close the proceedings, especially if minor children were involved. c) could the President themselves be compelled to take the stand and Yes. A party to a lawsuit may always be compelled to take the stand, at least if no other person can provide a full substitute for the party's testimony. In ordinary civil lawsuits against the President, a President is usually compelled to testify only if an underling involved in the same matter cannot provide equivalent testimony. In many civil cases naming the President in his official capacity, the President has no personal knowledge of the facts and so can't be compelled to testify. But that would rarely be true in a divorce case, and would never be true in a divorce case where custody was an issue. This said, a state divorce court judge would almost certainly be very deferential to the scheduling concerns of the President for that testimony, and might allow that testimony to be provided remotely via videoconference so as to minimize the interruption this would pose to affairs of state and to address the security concerns of the Secret Service (i.e. the President's official bodyguards). d) what would happen if the President refused to do so? The judge could hold the President in contempt of court, which is punishable by fines and/or incarceration. But a more likely outcome, tailored to minimize interference with government business, is that the Court would sanction a President who defied an order to testify by assuming as a matter of law that any testimony from the President would have been unfavorable to the President and make a conclusive adverse inference on the evidentiary issues about which the President was asked to testify against the President.
Family court does not hate men, but there have been historical biases in the law that were anti-male. The current standard is to not favor one sex over the other, thus a woman could be ordered to pay a man alimony, a man could be granted sole custody of a child, and so on. More likely, both parents would be given shared custody (meaning rights and responsibilities). The one most conspicuous sex-based legal asymmetry has a well-known natural explanation – the difference in assumptions regarding maternity vs. paternity (I don't know of any jurisdiction that has a provision for contesting maternity of a child).
If no one objects to a leading question, then the judge does nothing. A judge does not generally pro-actively police the rules of evidence at trial. Also, there are circumstances when a judge has discretion to allow a leading question even when it wouldn't ordinarily be allowed to move the trial along on largely undisputed points or to allow in inarticulate witness to testify. The exception to judicial passivity in the absence of an objection at trial is "plain error" that is not "harmless error", which a judge has a duty to prevent or address even if no objection is raised by a party. But, offering a leading question when one is not allowed by the rules of evidence almost never constitutes plain error, and would almost always be considered "harmless error" even if it was objected to and the judge ruled incorrectly, unless the use of improper leading questions was pervasive and there was a contemporaneous objection by counsel. For example, allowing a prospective juror to serve as a juror, despite that juror saying in the jury selection process that he can't be impartial because the defendant committed adultery with his spouse, because neither the prosecution or the defense attorney moves to strike the juror for cause, rather than striking that juror for cause of the court's own accord, is the kind of conduct that would often be considered "plain error" that is not "harmless error."
This is complicated. This is state dependent, and as of time of writing, you haven't disclosed what is the relevant state. This is something you should hire/retain a (divorce) lawyer, and discuss with them. The law can be messy; divorces are always messy. The answer is the most common answer in law: it depends, on specific facts. See above, get a lawyer. The first question is &quot;is the money in this investment account a shared asset that I have any claim to&quot;. The answer is &quot;it depends&quot;. What state are you in, and where did this money come from? Depending on various factors, the answer might very well be &quot;no&quot;, in which case, this money (and it's loss) may not affect you at all. If you do have some claim to this money, then it gets even more complicated. &quot;Can this asset be retrieved in a court proceeding and say that he was squandering money?&quot; Maybe, kinda. Technically no (because of the way you phrased that). I'll explain. In a divorce, &quot;shared&quot; assets are divided equitably (Note &quot;equitably&quot; does NOT mean &quot;equally&quot;) based on numerous factors, often on a case-by-case basis, and which factors depend on the state. (Therefore, the lawyer you retain should be licensed in the state you/your husband are filing for divorce in). Before your divorce, both sides have (in general) the right to use shared property. They do not have the right to intentionally damage or destroy said property. One complication/grey area is normal use that degrades or damages the value of said property. For example, imagine a classic sports car. Many people drive them for fun; this is normal use. On the other hand, using a classic sports car decreases the value. Is using the sports car unreasonable damage? This is a fact based determination to be made based on specifics. Can this asset be retrieved in a court proceeding [if I] say that he was squandering money? (correction to what I think think you meant). Maybe, but probably not. You can say whatever you want in court, but what matters is what you can prove, as you are the bearing the burden of proof due to making the accusation (and you must prove it to the standard required by the court in your case for your particular motion/accusation, which might be the standard of &quot;the balance of probabilities/more likely than not&quot; or &quot;clear and convincing evidence&quot;, or something else; it's complicated, fact dependent and state dependent, so get a lawyer). You don't need to prove that he lost money. If he was day trading before, the fact that he was day trading after the separation is not held against him; day trading is risky, therefore you have to prove that he intentionally lost money (and, potentially, that he intentionally lost money to deny money to you in the divorce, as opposed to e.g. tax loss harvesting). I would recommend hiring a divorce lawyer and discussing it with them.