Divorce statutes in most states consider several defenses in case of fault-based divorce, such as recrimination, condonation, reconciliation, collusion, and connivance. States traditionally have allowed mental illness as a common law affirmative defense in fault-based divorce actions, particularly against charges of adultery, cruelty, and desertion. Under a typical scenario, the defendant was required to plead the defense and prove that mental illness prevented the defendant from recognizing that the offending act was wrong. In states that allow fault-based divorce and that have detailed statutory schemes governing divorce actions, the general movement has been to limit or eliminate common law divorce defenses such as mental illness.
Usually, an annulment action involves issues of property distribution together with problems involving maintenance, custody, and child support. Annulment nullifies the marriage, but not the legitimacy of the children born to the marriage. Parents in an annulled marriage have a duty to support their children born before and after annulment. Children born during the annulled marriage are considered legitimate, and they have the same rights as children of divorced parents. During annulment proceedings, when a wife applies for child support and the husband insists that he is not the father of the child, the court has jurisdiction over the paternity question.
Impotence of either spouse is considered as one of the traditional fault grounds for divorce, and it remains a ground for fault-based divorce in some states. Some of those states allow grounds for annulment also to be grounds for fault-based divorce, and that includes impotence. In those states, the marriage is voidable if the afflicted spouse is found to have been impotent at the time of marriage and to have remained impotent up to the time the petition is filed. Generally, the petitioning spouse must prove that the impotent spouse is incapable of having sexual intercourse in order to get a divorce on this ground. Some of the states that retain impotence as a ground for divorce require that the impotence be permanent and incurable. In the case of the impotent husband, the advent of drugs to treat erectile dysfunction may affect that standard.
For purposes of no-fault divorce, states use various terms to describe the basic concept of marital breakdown, including irreconcilable differences, incompatibility, insupportability, and irretrievable breakdown. The realization that existing divorce laws no longer comported with the modern marriage experience and marital life led most states to recognize marital disharmony as a basis for no-fault divorce. Statutes usually provide some definition for the concept, and courts often have discretion to apply the standard in individual divorce proceedings.
In divorce, a critical issue impacting the treatment of insurance policies is whether the policy benefits are separate property or marital property. State divorce courts have reached varied answers on the question of whether a life insurance policy is separate or marital property. In some states, “whole life” insurance contracts have been held to be marital property and generally have been valued at their cash surrender value. “Term life” policies, on the other hand, which lack a surrender value, have not been considered divisible property. In states in which inheritances or gifts are classified as separate property, insurance proceeds usually are not treated as marital property for purposes of property distribution in divorce. Other courts have ruled that the proceeds of a life insurance policy purchased with community property should be treated as community property in a divorce.