Location chosen for divorce due to preferred processes
Divorce mill is a term used for a jurisdiction that is frequently used by non-residents to obtain a divorce quickly. Relocating temporarily to another jurisdiction to obtain a divorce is referred to as migratory divorce.[1] In the early years of the United States, after state legislatures gave courts the authority to grant divorces, some states had more lenient divorce laws than others. Divorce seekers began to travel to other jurisdictions when their home state's requirements were too onerous.
One of the first states to gain a reputation as a divorce mill was Indiana, followed by Illinois, Iowa, the Dakota Territory, and Nevada. When states became popular destinations for migratory divorce, many of the citizenry often protested. In response, some states made their divorce laws and residency requirements stricter, which resulted in divorce seekers moving to other liberal jurisdictions.
Coverage of the wealthy and the scandalous in newspapers often gave the public the perception that many more people were flocking to divorce mills than actually were.
Background
From 1776 to approximately 1850, divorces were granted by state legislatures. As the burden of divorce requests grew, states began to establish laws for divorce and transferred responsibility for granting divorces from the legislature to judicial courts.[2]:ch.2
Divorce laws across the United States varied greatly in the 1800s. Divorce in New York could only be granted for adultery, while neighboring Rhode Island listed ten offenses for which a divorce could be granted but required 365 days residency.[3] South Carolina only allowed for divorces during a six-year period in the 1870s. Newer states and territories in the west often had permissive divorce statutes and shorter residency requirements.[3]:xi
Rise of divorce mills
Migratory divorce in the United States was practiced from its earliest days. James Kent wrote:
...for many years after New York became an independent state, there was not any lawful mode of dissolving a marriage in the lifetime of the parties, but by a special act of the legislature. This strictness was productive of public inconvenience, and often forced the parties, in cases which rendered a separation fit and necessary, to some other state, to avail themselves of a more easy and certain remedy.[4]
Locations became divorce mills by combining liberal divorce laws with short residency requirements.[5] After the Civil War, lawyers in New York advertised their ability to obtain divorces in other states.[4] Divorce-seekers living in states with stringent divorce laws began to take advantage of more lenient laws in other states by relocating temporarily. Before 1850, migratory divorce-seekers were granted divorces in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.[2]:62 Indiana established relatively short time requirements for residency and became a popular destination for divorce in the 1850s, as did Illinois in the 1860s and Iowa in the 1870s and 1880s.[3]:xii Reputations for being divorce mills were formed more from newspaper accounts and publicity than from statistical evidence.[2]:102
The first U.S. state to be labeled a divorce mill was Indiana in the 1850s, which had lenient divorce laws at the time. Migrants were easily able to establish temporary residence.[5] Indiana required only an affidavit that the petitioner was a resident.[4] The Indiana Daily Journal wrote that more than 50 of the 72 divorce actions in Marion County in 1958 were filed by non-residents.[4] The ease of divorce in Indiana was criticized by citizens, including clergy and women's rights groups. The legislature increased the residency requirement to one year in 1859, however, Indiana retained its reputation as a divorce mill. The legislature further restricted its divorce laws in 1873, ending Indiana's easy divorces.[2]:65–66
Utah gained a reputation a divorce mill in the 1850s after an 1852 Utah Territory statute provided an omnibus clause[lower-alpha 1] as grounds for divorce and a residency requirement that a petitioner was "a resident of the Territory, or wishes to be one", allowing for same-day divorces.[2]:86 After 1878, Utah removed its omnibus clause and extended the residence requirement to one year.[4]
In 1867, the territorial legislature for the Dakota Territory set the residency requirement to 90 days and listed numerous causes for divorce. When the territory became two states in 1889, both states retained the grounds for divorce and 90-day requirement.[2]:98 The lenient residency requirement coupled with South Dakota's easier accessibility resulted in it becoming a popular destination for migratory divorces.[2]:100Sioux Falls, South Dakota, as the hub of multiple major railroad lines, became known as the "Divorce Colony".[3]:13–14 Many citizens, particularly the clergy, railed against the influx of non-residents seeking divorces. In 1893, South Dakota's state legislature extended the residency requirement for divorce to six months, and required residency for one year when the defendant could not be personally served.[3]:110 Divorce-seekers began to move instead to North Dakota, which still had only a three-month residency requirement.[3]:117 Fargo, in particular, gained a reputation as a divorce mill by the mid-1890s. After several years of debate, North Dakota extended its residency requirement to one year in 1899.[2]:101
After the Dakotas extended their residency requirements, lawyers advertised the six-month residency requirement of Wyoming and it was a popular destination for divorces until its residence period was extended to one year in 1901.[4]
Nevada's six-month residence requirement resulted in Reno becoming the primary destination for migratory divorce in the early 1900s. Pressured by protests, the legislature extended the residency requirement to one year in 1913, only to reverse it in 1915 under pressure from businesspeople.[2]:136–137 By the 1930s, the residence requirement had been reduced to six weeks.[3]:225 Recognizing, as Nevada did, that migratory divorce provided financial benefits to the state, other states in the 1930s sought to attract divorce-seekers: Idaho, Arkansas, Wyoming, and Florida.[6]
In the 1920s, wealthier Americans began seeking divorce decrees in Paris. Approximately 300 American couples obtained French divorces in 1926. Through stricter enforcement of laws, French courts reduced the flow of American migratory divorce-seekers, and only 25 were granted to Americans in 1934.[6]
Mexico, where a divorce might be granted in a single day, grew in popularity as a destination.[3]:227 Travel bureaus offered packaged "divorce tours" to Mexico. Mail order divorces from Mexico, though sometimes spurious and generally invalid if challenged in an American court, became a thriving business.[6] Haiti and Guam also became known as divorce mills.[7]
California's adoption of no-fault divorce in the 1970s quickly spread to other states. By the mid-1980s, migratory divorce was motivated by a desire to find a jurisdiction that would provide the most favorable financial, property, and custody awards, rather than seeking a jurisdiction with more lenient grounds for divorce as before.[2]:165
Incidence
A 1889 report from the federal Commissioner of Labor found that people who married in one state and divorced in another only constituted around 20 percent of divorces. The report, taking into consideration the mobile nature of the American populace, speculated that perhaps 3 to 10 percent of that 20 percent could be attributed to migratory divorce.[2]:110Samuel Warren Dike, founder of the Divorce Reform League, concluded that less than 10 percent of divorces were migratory, based on the 1889 report.[8]
In 1932, it was estimated that only 3 to 5 percent of divorces were migratory.[6] The publicity given to wealthy and famous people who sought Nevada divorces gave the impression that migratory divorces were more common than they actually were, with Nevada contributing only 1 divorce per 50 across the country in 1940.[2]:138
Felix Frankfurter wrote in a dissenting Supreme Court opinion Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343 (1948):
Actually, there are but five States, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming, in which divorces may be easily obtained on less than a year's residence...These five States accounted for only 24,370 divorces in 1940, but 9% of the national total...The number of divorces granted in Arkansas, Idaho, and Wyoming is small enough to indicate the normal incidence of divorce among their permanent population, with only a few transients taking advantage of their divorce laws. Nevada and Florida thus attract virtually all of the non-resident divorce business. Yet, between them, only 16,375 divorces were granted in 1940, 6% of the total.[6][9]
The numbers of Americans seeking Mexican divorces fluctuated:[6]
At issue was whether a state had to recognize a divorce granted by another state. States had the right to regulate marital status for their citizens, but they were also bound by Article Four of the United States Constitution.[2]:139-140
Several cases involving migratory divorce, such as Andrews v. Andrews (1903), Haddock v. Haddock (1906), and Williams v. North Carolina (1942), reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Andrews v. Andrews involved the estate of Charles Andrews and was brought by his first wife (Kate) against his second wife (Annie). Charles had obtained a divorce from Kate in 1892 after living in Sioux Falls for more than 90 days, and then married Annie eight months later. He died in 1897 and a probate court made Annie the administrator of his estate. Kate appealed the decision, claiming that the Sioux Falls divorce was not valid. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts agreed, citing an 1835 Massachusetts law:[3]:146–148
When any inhabitant of this state shall go into any other state or country, in order to obtain a divorce for any cause, which had occurred here, and whilst the parties resided here, or for any cause, which would not authorize a divorce, by the laws of this state, a divorce so obtained shall be of no force or effect in this state.
The U. S. Supreme Court upheld the finding of the Massachusetts court.[3]:146–148
In Haddock v. Haddock, the court found that the couple's domicile was New York and thus the divorce the husband obtained in Connecticut could be rejected by the New York courts. After that decision, some lesser courts applied the marital domicile principle established in the case, while other judges based their decisions on residency requirements so long as the party had not established residency solely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce.[2]:140
In Williams v. North Carolina, Lillie Hendrix and Otis Williams, both married residents of North Carolina, had relocated to Las Vegas. After six weeks residency in Nevada, each obtained a divorce. Hendrix and Williams then married each other and returned to North Carolina where they were charged with bigamy and sentenced to two years in prison. The Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court ruled that North Carolina had to grant full faith and credit to the Nevada decrees, overturning the verdict from Haddock v. Haddock. The court reexamined the case in 1945, with North Carolina arguing that six weeks in a motel did not constitute valid residence, and the court ruled that North Carolina did not have to grant full faith and credit to the Nevada decrees because a genuine domicile had not been established in Nevada.[2]:141–142
Notes
↑ In the Utah Territory statute, the omnibus clause permitted judges to grant divorces "when it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction and conviction of the courts that the parties cannot live in peace and union together and that their welfare requires a separation".
↑ Upon return to England, Russell was found guilty of bigamy and imprisoned.
Related Research Articles
Nevada is a landlocked state in the Western region of the United States. It borders Oregon to the northwest, Idaho to the northeast, California to the west, Arizona to the southeast, and Utah to the east. Nevada is the 7th-most extensive, the 32nd-most populous, and the 9th-least densely populated of the U.S. states. Nearly three-quarters of Nevada's people live in Clark County, which contains the Las Vegas–Paradise metropolitan area, including three of the state's four largest incorporated cities. Nevada's capital is Carson City. Las Vegas is the largest city in the state.
Reno is a city in the northwest section of the U.S. state of Nevada, along the Nevada–California border. It is the county seat and most populous city of Washoe County. Sitting in the High Eastern Sierra foothills, in the Truckee River valley, on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, it is about 23 miles (37 km) northeast of Lake Tahoe. Known as "The Biggest Little City in the World", it is the 80th most populous city in the United States, the 3rd most populous city in Nevada, and the most populous in Nevada outside the Las Vegas Valley. The city had a population of 264,165 at the 2020 census.
Annulment is a legal procedure within secular and religious legal systems for declaring a marriage null and void. Unlike divorce, it is usually retroactive, meaning that an annulled marriage is considered to be invalid from the beginning almost as if it had never taken place. In legal terminology, an annulment makes a void marriage or a voidable marriage null.
A marriage license is a document issued, either by a religious organization or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a license varies between jurisdictions, and has changed over time. Marriage licenses began to be issued in the Middle Ages, to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal.
No-fault divorce is the dissolution of a marriage that does not require a showing of wrongdoing by either party. Laws providing for no-fault divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party of the marriage without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the defendant has committed a breach of the marital contract.
In law and conflict of laws, domicile is relevant to an individual's "personal law", which includes the law that governs a person's status and their property. It is independent of a person's nationality. Although a domicile may change from time to time, a person has only one domicile, or residence, at any point in their life, no matter what their circumstances. Domicile is distinct from habitual residence, where there is less focus on future intent.
In the United States, vehicle registration plates, known as license plates, are issued by a department of motor vehicles, an agency of the state or territorial government, or in the case of the District of Columbia, the district government. Some Native American tribes also issue plates. The U.S. federal government issues plates only for its own vehicle fleet and for vehicles owned by foreign diplomats. Until the 1980s, diplomatic plates were issued by the state in which the consulate or embassy was located.
Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.
In modern society, the role of marriage and its termination through divorce have become political issues. As people live increasingly mobile lives, the conflict of laws and its choice of law rules are highly relevant to determine:
A marriage certificate is an official statement that two people are married. In most jurisdictions, a marriage certificate is issued by a government official only after the civil registration of the marriage.
This article summarizes the same-sex marriage laws of states in the United States. Via the case Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States legalized same-sex marriage in a decision that applies nationwide, with the exception of American Samoa and sovereign tribal nations.
Divorce law, the legal provisions for the dissolution of marriage, varies widely across the globe, reflecting diverse legal systems and cultural norms. Most nations allow for residents to divorce under some conditions except the Philippines and the Vatican City, an ecclesiastical sovereign city-state, which has no procedure for divorce. In these two countries, laws only allow annulment of marriages.
In the United States, marriage and divorce fall under the jurisdiction of state governments, not the federal government.
The extension of civil marriage, union, and domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples in various jurisdictions can raise legal issues upon dissolution of these unions that are not experienced by opposite-sex couples, especially if law of their residence or nationality does not have same-sex marriage or partnerships.
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Nevada since October 9, 2014, when a federal district court judge issued an injunction against enforcement of Nevada's same-sex marriage ban, acting on order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had ruled two days earlier that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage was previously banned by an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada approved in 2002. The statutory and constitutional bans were repealed in 2017 and 2020, respectively.
The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly, depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction, although there is no uniform federal law. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions; others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while some allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements.
Greystone Castle is a small Tudor style cottage in the Newlands Manor section of Reno, Nevada, USA. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places as an example of its architectural style as well as its ties into Reno's history as a migratory divorce town. Starting with the William E. Corey divorce, Reno became known for its much quicker and simpler divorce laws, the only requirement being that the individuals had to stay in town for six months to achieve residency. Greystone Castle is the type of smaller upscale housing that divorcing individuals used during their waiting period.
Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the federal government determines marriage and divorce statuses between state lines. Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix moved to Nevada and filed for divorce from their respective spouses. Once the divorces were final Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix were married and then moved back to North Carolina. They lived there together until they were charged by the state of North Carolina for bigamous cohabitation.
The history of concealed carry in the United States is the history of public opinion, policy, and law regarding the practice of carrying concealed firearms, especially handguns.
The Divorce Colony: How Women Revolutionized Marriage and Found Freedom on the American Frontier is a nonfiction book by April White. Published by Hachette Book Group in 2022, The Divorce Colony examines the role of Sioux Falls, South Dakota as a destination for divorce seekers through personal stories. Excerpts were published in The Boston Globe, Smithsonian Magazine, and on Politico.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
