# Legal Separation & Divorce



## delgirl (7 Sep 2005)

What is the difference between the two?  If you are legally separated from your partner and if you are the breadwinner are you obliged to pay support to your ex partner?

When you divorce / separate -  if your partner is not in employment would they be considered a dependent and would you be ordered by a court to pay maintenance if there are no children involved?

Thanks.


----------



## ClubMan (7 Sep 2005)

Does  answer your questions?


----------



## RainyDay (7 Sep 2005)

I thought the real difference was that a divorcee could legally remarry.


----------



## ribena (8 Sep 2005)

If you are legally separated, you are still considered a spouse in the eyes of the law.  If your spouse were to die, you would still be entitled to your share of their estate etc.  You can also receive maintenance etc.  Once you have been legally separeted for 4 years you can apply for a divorce whereby you cut all ties to the marriage.  Most people stay legally separated unless they want to get re-married.


----------



## Thirsty (10 Sep 2005)

A Judicial Separation (JS) will generally contain clauses extingushing inheritance rights.  

There are two major difference between a JS and a Divorce; the first is that both parties must be living apart (i.e. no longer as husband and wife, though it is possible to be sharing the same address) for one year before applying for a JS.  For a Divorce both parties must be living apart (not 'legally separated') for 4 of the last 5 years before application is made.  

The second difference is that re-marriage is possible after a Divorce is granted but not after a JS.  

Spousal and child maintenance is payable regardless of whether you have a JS or Divorce.


----------



## delgirl (11 Sep 2005)

Thanks to those who responded.

A dreadful and, I suppose, somewhat rare situation in that it's the husband in this case who's being battered and mentally abused.

He's trying to extracate himself from the marriage before some serious harm is done or he suffers a breakdown or loses his job through all the stress and would, ideally, like to sever all links with the former spouse so as to avoid further confrontation.

Who decides if he must pay spousal maintenance and how is it decided?  

Surely this would ensure that there would be a continued link between the two and that is exactly what he is trying to avoid.  There are no children involved.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Sep 2005)

is an organisation that might be able to assist in this situation.


----------



## delgirl (11 Sep 2005)

Perfect link ClubMan, thanks for that!


----------



## Thirsty (12 Sep 2005)

Even with divorce, there is no such thing in this country as 'severing all links'; the requirement to maintain is never removed except by remarriage or death of the maintained spouse.


----------



## bond-007 (12 Sep 2005)

Surely if the other spouse has vast wealth, there would be no need to maintain?


----------



## delgirl (12 Sep 2005)

The spouse has been on disability benefit for the past 25 years due to depression.  This is the only income she has.  

Could this be supplemented by Social Welfare payments?


----------



## Thirsty (12 Sep 2005)

_Need_ for maintenance can be assessed by courts if the couple can't agree; the obligation in regards to maintenance is never removed.


----------



## bond-007 (12 Sep 2005)

Kildrought said:
			
		

> _Need_ for maintenance can be assessed by courts if the couple can't agree; the obligation in regards to maintenance is never removed.


 So your saying that a woman could be earning €1 million a year, and some unfournate slob who divorced her would need to pay her?


----------



## MOB (12 Sep 2005)

No; what he is saying (I am nearly sure) is that there is no such thing in Ireland as a "clean break" settlement.  The courts always have the right to re-visit.  Obviously, if a woman (or man) earns €1m a year, a court is unlikely to regard her (him ) as needing maintenance.  I suppose if the "poor slob" made €20m a year, it might still be possible, but I doubt that such cases will trouble most of us.


----------



## RainyDay (12 Sep 2005)

Just out of academic interest, is there usually an obligation to spousal payments in cases where both parties were working and there are no kids involved?


----------



## delgirl (13 Sep 2005)

Kildrought said:
			
		

> _Need_ for maintenance can be assessed by courts if the couple can't agree; the obligation in regards to maintenance is never removed.


Say the husband was unemployed and the wife worked - he batters her, she leaves home and starts divorce proceedings, would any court order her to pay maintenance to a man who battered her for the rest of his life?

I can't imagine this scenario, but then I don't know much about this area of law.

In this case it's a man being battered and viciously attacked by his wife who has also threatened to get him fired from the job he has held for 35 years (not likely, but she's going to cause some problems there).  He's had to leave the family home on a few occasions for days at a time with only the shirt on his back as he's afraid she might kill him.

I don't understand how someone could be expected to support the aggressor in this case - or are there circumstances under which a judge would refuse maintenance?


----------



## Thirsty (13 Sep 2005)

delgirl, See MOBs reply.  Behaviour of either party during the marriage is disregarded when coming to settlement terms _unless_ it would be unjust not to take them into account.  Established physical violence would most likely be taken into account.

In my experience if both parties are of equal financial standing; then spousal maintenance is unlikely to be awarded (please take this with the caveat that I am not a legal professional).


----------

