I'm unsure about this.

[Boxlicker101]

This is feedback on my Valentine's Day story. It has been my understanding that, in a no-fault divorce state, such as CA, the woman in this case would have been SOL. It didn't used to be that way, but it is now.

That's assuming the judge didn't think the guy was such a rat that he should have paid anyhow.

This message contains feedback for:
Boxlicker101
About the submission:
Temporary RomanceThis feedback was sent by:
Anonymous
Comments:
I understand the story line but even a shocked high school graduate should have figured out that she had spent 10 years investing in the education of the summa cum lout. She should have been able to claim a sizeable portion of his future earnings which were in part a result of her investment. If it was in a no-fault state, that should have been the case even if she was an adultress.

She was not an adulteress, by the way, because she and her husband were legally separated, even though their divorce would not have been final.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Box, as I understand the No Fault legal concept in divorces, it's an option both parties must agree to before it can be used. There is also the concept of "palimony" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Lee Chambers]

I understand the story line but even a shocked high school graduate should have figured out that she had spent 10 years investing in the education of the summa cum lout. She should have been able to claim a sizeable portion of his future earnings which were in part a result of her investment. If it was in a no-fault state, that should have been the case even if she was an adultress.

People have got to find better ways to spend their spare time.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, as I understand the No Fault legal concept in divorces, it's an option both parties must agree to before it can be used. There is also the concept of "palimony" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony

Rumple Foreskin

That is not the case. It would make it more difficult for the party who wanted the divorce, but it could be done, especially if that party was represented by high-powered lawyers. http://www.cadivorce.com/content.aspx?id=564 I did some research before I wrote the story.

"Palimony" is a recently coined word and has nothing to do with a couple who is married. It's basically a matter of contract law, and is not even mentioned in Family Court.

In the divorce in question, there were no children involved and litle community property, but the husband had been supported by his wife while attending university for about seven years, and he dumped her right after his graduation. The judge could have considered his perfidy and awarded temporary spousal support, but that didn't happen.