Some equitable-distribution states look to the conduct of the parties and permit findings of marital fault to affect property

distribution. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont have statutes that explicitly include both economic
and marital misconduct as factors in the disposition of property. Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri,
Virginia, and Wyoming all consider marital conduct in property distribution. In Florida and Virginia, only fault relating to
economic Welfare is relevant in property distribution. Alaska, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin expressly exclude
marital misconduct from consideration in the disposition of marital property.

Equitable-distribution states generally give the court considerable discretion as to the division of property between the parties.
The courts consider not only the joint assets held by the parties, but also separate assets that the parties either brought with
them into the marriage or that they inherited or received as gifts during the marriage. Generally, if the separate property is kept
separate during the marriage, and not commingled with joint assets like a joint bank account, then the court will recognize that
it belongs separately to the individual spouse, and they will not divide it along with the marital assets. A minority of states,
however, support the idea that all separate property of the parties becomes joint marital property upon marriage.

As for the division of marital assets, equitable-distribution states look to the monetary and nonmonetary contributions that
each spouse made to the marriage. If one party made a greater contribution, the court may grant that party a greater share of
the joint assets. Some states do not consider a professional degree earned by one spouse during the marriage to be a joint
asset, but do acknowledge any financial support contributed by the other spouse, and they let that be reflected in the property
distribution. Other states do consider a professional degree or license to be a joint marital asset and have devised various ways
to distribute it or its benefits.

States that follow community-property laws provide that nearly all of the property that has been acquired during the marriage
belongs to the marital "community," such that the husband and wife each have a one-half interest in it upon death or divorce.
It is presumed that all property that has been acquired during the marriage by either spouse, including earned income, belongs
to the community unless proved otherwise. Exceptions are made for property received as a gift or through inheritance, and for
the property that each party brought into the marriage. Those types of property are considered separate and not part of the
community. Upon divorce, each party keeps his or her own separate property, as well as half of the community property. True
community property systems exist in Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington. Other
states, such as Wisconsin, have adopted variations of the community-property laws.

Alimony, or spousal maintenance, is the financial support that one spouse provides to the other after divorce. It is separate
from, and in addition to, the division of marital property. It can be either temporary or permanent. Its use originally arose from
the common-law right of a wife to receive support from her husband. Under contemporary law, men and women are eligible
for spousal maintenance. Factors that are relevant to an order of maintenance include the age and marketable skills of the
intended recipient, the length of the marriage, and the income of both spouses.

Maintenance is most often used to provide temporary support to a spouse who was financially dependent on the other during
the marriage. Temporary maintenance is designed to provide the necessary support for a spouse until he or she either
remarries or becomes self-supporting. Many states allow courts to consider marital fault in determining whether, and how
much, maintenance should be granted. These states include Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Like the entire body of divorce law, the issue of maintenance differs from state to state. If a spouse is found to have caused the
breakup of the marriage, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia allow a court to refuse maintenance, even if that
spouse was financially dependent on the other. North Carolina requires a showing of the supporting spouse's fault before
awarding maintenance. Illinois allows fault grounds for divorce but excludes consideration of fault in maintenance and property
settlements. Florida offers only no-fault grounds for divorce but admits evidence of adultery in maintenance determinations.

An antenuptial agreement, or Premarital Agreement, is a contract between persons who plan to marry, concerning property
rights upon divorce. A postnuptial agreement is a contract entered into by divorcing parties before they reach court.
Traditionally, antenuptial agreements were discouraged by state legislatures and courts as being contrary to the public policy in
favor of lifetime marriage. An antenuptial agreement is made under the assumption that the marriage may not last forever,
which suggests that it facilitates divorce. No state expressly prohibits antenuptial agreements, but, as in any contract case,
courts reserve the right to void any that it finds Unconscionable or to have been made under duress.

State statutes that authorize antenuptial and postnuptial agreements usually require that the parties fulfill certain conditions. In
Delaware, for example, a man and a woman may execute an antenuptial agreement in the presence of two witnesses at least
ten days before their marriage. Such an agreement, if notarized, may be filed as a deed with the office of the recorder in any
county of the state (Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 301). Both antenuptial and postnuptial contracts concerning real estate must be
recorded in the registry of deeds where the land is situated (§ 302).

Jurisdiction over a divorce case is usually determined by residency. That is, a divorcing spouse is required to bring the divorce
action in the state where he or she maintains a permanent home. States are obligated to acknowledge a divorce that was
obtained in another state. This rule derives from the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (art. IV, § 1), which
requires states to recognize the valid laws and court orders of other states. However, if the divorce was originally granted by a
court with no jurisdictional authority, a state is free to disregard it.

In a divorce proceeding where one spouse is not present (an ex parte proceeding), the divorce is given full recognition if the
spouse received proper notice and the original divorce forum was the bona fide domicile of the divorcing spouse. However, a
second state may reject the divorce decree if it finds that the divorce forum was improper.

State courts are not constitutionally required to recognize divorce judgments granted in foreign countries. A U.S. citizen who
leaves the country to evade divorce laws will not be protected if the foreign divorce is subsequently challenged. However,
where the foreign divorce court had valid jurisdiction over both parties, most U.S. courts will recognize the foreign court's
decree.

The only way that an individual may obtain a divorce is through the state. Therefore, under the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a state must make divorce available to everyone. If a party seeking divorce
cannot afford the court expenses, filing fees, and costs associated with the serving or publication of legal papers, the party may
file for divorce free of charge. Most states offer mediation as an alternative to court appearance. Mediation is less expensive
and less adversarial than appearing in public court.

In January 1994, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services published a report entitled
Responding to the Needs of the Self-Represented Divorce Litigant. The committee recognized that a growing number of persons
are divorcing pro se, or without the benefit of an attorney. Some of these persons are pro se litigants by choice, but many want
the assistance of an attorney and are unable to afford one. In response to this trend, the committee offered several ideas to the
state bar associations and state legislatures, including the formation of simplified divorce pleadings and the passage of plainly
worded statutes. The committee also endorsed the creation of courthouse day care for children of divorcing spouses, night-
court divorce sessions, and workshop clinics that give instruction to pro se divorce litigants. Many such programs are currently
operating at district, county, and family courts around the United States.

In the United States, divorce law consists of 51 different sets of conditions—one for each state and the District of Columbia.
Each state holds dear its power to regulate domestic relations, and peculiar divorce laws abound. Nevertheless, divorce law in
most states has evolved to recognize the difference between regulating the actual decision to divorce and regulating the
practical ramifications of such a decision, such as property distribution, support obligations, and child custody. Most courts
ignore marital fault in determining whether to grant a divorce, but many still consider it in setting future obligations between
the parties. To determine the exact nature of the rights and duties relating to a divorce, one must consult the relevant statutes
for the state in which the divorce is filed.