Talk:Divorce mill

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Divorce#Divorces obtained in a different country or jurisdiction|Divorce: Divorces Obtained in a Different Country of Jurisdiction]] The anchor (#Divorces obtained in a different country or jurisdiction) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Comment

A longer version of the part I wrote for divorce. As I said there, I went through a divorce as a United States citizen and resident (though overseas at the time) and throughly investigated my options and their legality, and am sharing this information with Wikipedia's Readers. It's yours to modify. Nephalim 08:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Nephalim[reply]

Divorce mill vs. Divorce Mill

A user just blanked the article and rewrote it as a redirect to Divorce Mill. Couple of points

it is not a proper name (as in Burger King) it is a generic term - also,
you would MOVE the page not redirect it so as to keep the histories intact

Thanks Glen 08:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have a history or I would have thought heavier about doing it. It doesn't appear to exist anywhere now, at least I can't find it. Can you help me out putting it in the proper place including proper redirects? Again, I was the one who wrote it, a few months back. Thanks. Nephalim 08:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Glen! I made a few minor touch-ups. It could perhaps use someone else's viewpoint (who is familiar with this subject matter - my own lawyer - where I inevitably obtained a divorce in New York - didn't know Guam was a US Territory nor knew of any "alternative" routes to divorce.Nephalim 11:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic

I know Haiti lets you get at least an uncontested divorce in a weekend stay, and I know there is little difference in the Dominican Republic. I do not know the specifics of Mexico, or the specifics of contested divorces in any of the countries. Addition of this information would be nice.

Specifics of Quick Divorce in Selected Countries

In Nevada
In Guam
In Dominican Republic

Nephalim 11:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Information Inaccurate

The information about Nevada is inaccurate. In Nevada, a court is generally required to make a 50-50 division of the community property. See Nev. Rev. Stat. s. 125.150(1)(b).John Paul Parks (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domicile, Williams, Sherrer

The section on legality needs serious rewrite - and honestly I'm not inclined to do it. Issues that need to be addressed:

1. In US law, the basis of subject-matter jurisdiction in divorce is domicile. Domicile is the place were a person resides with the intent to permanently or at least indefinitely remain. In colloquial terms, it is 'home.' A natural person (i.e. not a corporation), may only have one domicile at a time. 2. The difference between an ex-parte divorce and a bilateral is critical to determining whether a divorce granted by state A (e.g. Nevada) can be collaterally attacked as invalid in state B (e.g. North Carolina). 3. Where divorce is ex-parte, only one party to marriage appears in the divorcing court. Under Williams V. North Carolina II, the other spouse can collaterally attack the validity of the ex-parte divorce in another state on grounds that the state granting the divorce didn't have jurisdiction. This involves arguing that the spouse seeking the divorce in that state was not domiciled in that state. 4. Where the divorce is bilateral, both parties appear in the divorcing court. Even a special appearance by the defendant spouse is sufficient. Sherrer v. Sherrer bars collateral attack on these divorces because the parties could have argued the issue of domicile (and hence jurisdiction) in the divorcing state. When the issue is brought before the court of the other state, it is already res judicata. In this scenario, the second state must give full faith and credit to the divorce decree of the sister state. Where that decree was issued in the District of Columbia or a territory (e.g. United States Virgin Islands), full faith and credit is applicable via statute but not the federal constitution. 5. There is a lot more to this area of law, but obviously people with issues on this topic should consult an attorney, not wikipedia.

On another point, other historic divorce mills:

1. Mexico 2. United States Virgin Islands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.183.79 (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah whatever - I've added my piece in anyway. I've left what was there already intact, even though that section should be altered dramatically. The section I added contains the basic relevant law on the issue.

In my opinion, and no offense to anybody, the remainder of the validity section should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.183.79 (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, except for the section re due process - as that addresses personal jurisdiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.183.79 (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - I know I said I wouldn't delete it but it really bothered me. Three reasons:

1. The section on children appeared to give legal advice - that's totally inappropriate on Wikipedia; 2. The section on notice is true throughout the law and not really specific to this topic. Further, divorces (though not equitable distribution or division of community property cannot - see divisible divorce doctrine from Estin v. Estin) can be granted in rem, meaning only service by publication is necessary. So notice is not necessarily a huge issue here 3. The remaining sections were simply legally inaccurate.

This being the case, I welcome comment on my sections re domicile, Williams, and Sherrer. There is more I could add but really I dont't think a wikipedia article need cover anything more than the basics. 75.197.183.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]