{"id":26927,"date":"2022-09-05T03:28:18","date_gmt":"2022-09-05T03:28:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/amjur\/divorce-sect-3.html"},"modified":"2022-08-25T11:48:06","modified_gmt":"2022-08-25T11:48:06","slug":"divorce-sect-3","status":"publish","type":"amjur","link":"https:\/\/reference.findlaw.com\/amjur\/divorce-sect-3.html","title":{"rendered":"Am Jur 2d &#8211; Divorce and Separation \u00a7 3"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"leafpage\">\n<h2>I. Divorce and Separation Proceedings, Generally, A. Nature and Validity, 1. In General, \u00a7 3 &#8211; Stipulations and agreements<\/h2>\n<p>While settlement is an encouraged mode of resolving cases generally, the use of consensual agreements to resolve marital controversies is particularly favored in divorce matters,[<a href=\"#fn1\" name=\"fn-ref1\">1<\/a>] and there is a strong public policy of encouraging settlement of divorce cases.[<a href=\"#fn2\" name=\"fn-ref2\">2<\/a>] Settlement agreements in marital dissolution actions generally are upheld, to the extent they comply with the equitable precepts embodied in the applicable statutes.[<a href=\"#fn3\" name=\"fn-ref3\">3<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p>In a divorce action, a settlement agreement or stipulation, if accepted by the court, becomes the judgment of the court itself,[<a href=\"#fn4\" name=\"fn-ref4\">4<\/a>] or may be incorporated into the final decree of divorce.[<a href=\"#fn5\" name=\"fn-ref5\">5<\/a>] Generally, the court has the discretion to approve or reject the agreement, in whole or in part,[<a href=\"#fn6\" name=\"fn-ref6\">6<\/a>] and are not bound by an agreement reached by the parties to a divorce action.[<a href=\"#fn7\" name=\"fn-ref7\">7<\/a>] However, in some states a separation agreement, under certain conditions, is binding on the trial court, and the terms of the separation agreement are incorporated into a judgment and decree of dissolution.[<a href=\"#fn8\" name=\"fn-ref8\">8<\/a>] While a court may reject all or part of a marital dissolution stipulation, generally, it cannot, by judicial fiat, impose conditions on the parties to which they did not stipulate and thereby deprive the parties of their day in court.[<a href=\"#fn9\" name=\"fn-ref9\">9<\/a>] The parties to a divorce action may, generally speaking, stipulate to a provision in a divorce judgment even if the court would not otherwise have the statutory authority to order that provision absent the parties&#8217; consent.[<a href=\"#fn10\" name=\"fn-ref10\">10<\/a>] A court cannot accept and incorporate into a divorce decree an incomplete and unenforceable settlement agreement.[<a href=\"#fn11\" name=\"fn-ref11\">11<\/a>] Even if part of a separation agreement is declared void, the separation agreement still retains vitality as a basis for dissolution of the marriage.[<a href=\"#fn12\" name=\"fn-ref12\">12<\/a>]<\/p>\n<div class=\"feature-para-block\">\n<div class=\"feature-para-name\">Practice Tip:<\/div>\n<p>Courts in divorce proceedings may act upon and enforce oral agreements and stipulations entered into in open court and spread upon the record by parties represented by able counsel.[<a href=\"#fn13\" name=\"fn-ref13\">13<\/a>] Open-court stipulations are judicially favored, and will not be set aside in a divorce action, absent fraud, overreaching, mistake, duress, or unconscionability.[<a href=\"#fn14\" name=\"fn-ref14\">14<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>When parties agree to dissolve their marriage under certain terms, that stipulation is accorded the sanctity of a binding contract.[<a href=\"#fn15\" name=\"fn-ref15\">15<\/a>] A settlement agreement that has been incorporated into a final divorce judgment may be enforced either as a judgment or an independent contract.[<a href=\"#fn16\" name=\"fn-ref16\">16<\/a>] Vested contractual rights\u2014whether incorporated by, memorialized in, or merged into a final divorce decree\u2014generally cannot be judicially modified or terminated at the unilateral request of a contract party unless the agreement expressly authorizes such relief.[<a href=\"#fn17\" name=\"fn-ref17\">17<\/a>]<\/p>\n<div class=\"feature-para-block\">\n<div class=\"feature-para-name\">Practice Tip:<\/div>\n<p>If the divorce court rejects any portion of a divorce settlement agreement, the parties must be afforded an opportunity to be heard on those matters that have returned to disputed status.[<a href=\"#fn18\" name=\"fn-ref18\">18<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"update-stack\">\n<div class=\"stack-note-head\">Cases:<\/div>\n<div class=\"note-text\">\n<p>Stipulations in a divorce are considered in the same manner as a typical contract between two parties. <span class=\"cite\">\t<a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000711&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2034251860\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Zurosky v. Shaffer, 763 S.E.2d 755 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)\">Zurosky v. Shaffer, 763 S.E.2d 755 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014)<\/a>      <\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<h2>All case links go to Westlaw and require login.<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref1\" name=\"fn1\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">1<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000162&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2004559900\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Weishaus v. Weishaus, 180 N.J. 131, 849 A.2d 171 (2004)\">Weishaus v. Weishaus, 180 N.J. 131, 849 A.2d 171 (2004)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref2\" name=\"fn2\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">2<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000595&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2004890090\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Lawrence v. Lawrence, 276 Wis. 2d 403, 2004 WI App 170, 687 N.W.2d 748 (Ct. App. 2004)\">Lawrence v. Lawrence, 276 Wis. 2d 403, 2004 WI App 170, 687 N.W.2d 748 (Ct. App. 2004)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref3\" name=\"fn3\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">3<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000162&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2004559900\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Weishaus v. Weishaus, 180 N.J. 131, 849 A.2d 171 (2004)\">Weishaus v. Weishaus, 180 N.J. 131, 849 A.2d 171 (2004)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref4\" name=\"fn4\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">4<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000711&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2012538688\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Arnold v. Arnold, 282 Ga. 246, 647 S.E.2d 68 (2007)\">Arnold v. Arnold, 282 Ga. 246, 647 S.E.2d 68 (2007)<\/a>    <\/span>; <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000595&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2010750938\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Hottenroth v. Hetsko, 298 Wis. 2d 200, 2006 WI App 249, 727 N.W.2d 38 (Ct. App. 2006)\">Hottenroth v. Hetsko, 298 Wis. 2d 200, 2006 WI App 249, 727 N.W.2d 38 (Ct. App. 2006)<\/a>    <\/span>, review denied, <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000595&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2012322091\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"2007 WI 59, 299 Wis. 2d 325, 731 N.W.2d 636 (2007)\">2007 WI 59, 299 Wis. 2d 325, 731 N.W.2d 636 (2007)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span>  <span>\u00a0Settlement agreements entered into by divorcing spouses and judicially approved become a part of the decree and enforceable as such as though entered by the court following contested proceedings. <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000735&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2005661413\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"West v. West, 891 So. 2d 203 (Miss. 2004)\">West v. West, 891 So. 2d 203 (Miss. 2004)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref5\" name=\"fn5\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">5<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000711&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2006657143\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Gaffney v. Gaffney, 45 Va. App. 655, 613 S.E.2d 471 (2005)\">Gaffney v. Gaffney, 45 Va. App. 655, 613 S.E.2d 471 (2005)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref6\" name=\"fn6\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">6<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000711&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2012538688\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Arnold v. Arnold, 282 Ga. 246, 647 S.E.2d 68 (2007)\">Arnold v. Arnold, 282 Ga. 246, 647 S.E.2d 68 (2007)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span>  <span>\u00a0In deciding whether to approve a stipulation agreed to by married persons in the context of a divorce, a court must exercise its independent judgment to determine whether a stipulation is, on the facts of the case in question, appropriate. <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000595&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2006748937\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"In re Marriage of Rettke, 696 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)\">In re Marriage of Rettke, 696 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref7\" name=\"fn7\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">7<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000735&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2004128356\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Brandt v. Brandt, 888 So. 2d 510 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004)\">Brandt v. Brandt, 888 So. 2d 510 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004)<\/a>    <\/span>; <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000578&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2009391068\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Dewbrew v. Dewbrew, 849 N.E.2d 636 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)\">Dewbrew v. Dewbrew, 849 N.E.2d 636 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span>  <span>\u00a0In fashioning a divorce judgment based on the parties&#8217; agreement, the court is not limited to the ministerial task of transcribing the exact language of the agreement, but, pursuant to its parens patriae role, should enter a judgment that is fair, reasonable, and responsible. <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000162&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2007047865\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Webb v. Webb, 2005 ME 91, 878 A.2d 522 (Me. 2005)\">Webb v. Webb, 2005 ME 91, 878 A.2d 522 (Me. 2005)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref8\" name=\"fn8\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">8<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0004644&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2008844277\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"In re Marriage of Rolfes, 187 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2006)\">In re Marriage of Rolfes, 187 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2006)<\/a>    <\/span>; <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0004644&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2009469963\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"In re Marriage of Joyner, 196 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2006)\">In re Marriage of Joyner, 196 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2006)<\/a>    <\/span>, review denied, (Dec. 1, 2006).<br \/><\/span>  <span>\u00a0Generally, settlements in domestic cases are binding on the court unless unconscionable. <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000595&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2006657834\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Bevins v. Gettman, 13 Neb. App. 555, 697 N.W.2d 698 (2005)\">Bevins v. Gettman, 13 Neb. App. 555, 697 N.W.2d 698 (2005)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref9\" name=\"fn9\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">9<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000595&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2004141587\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Kielley v. Kielley, 674 N.W.2d 770 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)\">Kielley v. Kielley, 674 N.W.2d 770 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span>  <span>\u00a0A trial judge should not reject a settlement agreement in a marital dissolution action just because the judge believes he or she could draft a better one. <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000578&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2008778817\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Beaman v. Beaman, 844 N.E.2d 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)\">Beaman v. Beaman, 844 N.E.2d 525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref10\" name=\"fn10\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">10<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000595&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2004890090\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Lawrence v. Lawrence, 276 Wis. 2d 403, 2004 WI App 170, 687 N.W.2d 748 (Ct. App. 2004)\">Lawrence v. Lawrence, 276 Wis. 2d 403, 2004 WI App 170, 687 N.W.2d 748 (Ct. App. 2004)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref11\" name=\"fn11\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">11<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000711&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2009332970\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Ciraldo v. Ciraldo, 280 Ga. 602, 631 S.E.2d 640 (2006)\">Ciraldo v. Ciraldo, 280 Ga. 602, 631 S.E.2d 640 (2006)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref12\" name=\"fn12\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">12<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000602&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2014961506\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"P.B. v. L.B., 19 Misc. 3d 186, 855 N.Y.S.2d 836 (Sup 2008)\">P.B. v. L.B., 19 Misc. 3d 186, 855 N.Y.S.2d 836 (Sup 2008)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref13\" name=\"fn13\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">13<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0004644&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2004142852\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Stelts v. Stelts, 126 S.W.3d 499 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2004)\">Stelts v. Stelts, 126 S.W.3d 499 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2004)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref14\" name=\"fn14\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">14<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000602&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2008332177\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Tarone v. Tarone, 25 A.D.3d 779, 809 N.Y.S.2d 150 (2d Dep&#039;t 2006)\">Tarone v. Tarone, 25 A.D.3d 779, 809 N.Y.S.2d 150 (2d Dep&#8217;t 2006)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref15\" name=\"fn15\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">15<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000162&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2007273870\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Wolosoff v. Wolosoff, 91 Conn. App. 374, 880 A.2d 977 (2005)\">Wolosoff v. Wolosoff, 91 Conn. App. 374, 880 A.2d 977 (2005)<\/a>    <\/span>; <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000595&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2004657465\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Gatfield v. Gatfield, 682 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)\">Gatfield v. Gatfield, 682 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)<\/a>    <\/span>; <span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000595&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2011446381\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Waters v. Waters, 300 Wis. 2d 224, 2007 WI App 40, 730 N.W.2d 655 (Ct. App. 2007)\">Waters v. Waters, 300 Wis. 2d 224, 2007 WI App 40, 730 N.W.2d 655 (Ct. App. 2007)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref16\" name=\"fn16\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">16<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000162&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2013161334\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Bornemann v. Bornemann, 175 Md. App. 716, 931 A.2d 1154 (2007)\">Bornemann v. Bornemann, 175 Md. App. 716, 931 A.2d 1154 (2007)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref17\" name=\"fn17\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">17<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000711&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2005218485\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Baldwin v. Baldwin, 44 Va. App. 93, 603 S.E.2d 172 (2004)\">Baldwin v. Baldwin, 44 Va. App. 93, 603 S.E.2d 172 (2004)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p>  <a href=\"#fn-ref18\" name=\"fn18\" class=\"footnote-revlink\">18<\/a>  <span>\u00a0<span class=\"cite\">      <a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Link\/Document\/FullText?findType=Y&amp;originatingContext=document&amp;transitionType=DocumentItem&amp;pubNum=0000162&amp;refType=RP&amp;originatingDoc=&amp;serNum=2006142335\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Lowd v. Dimoulas, 2005 ME 19, 866 A.2d 867 (Me. 2005)\">Lowd v. Dimoulas, 2005 ME 19, 866 A.2d 867 (Me. 2005)<\/a>    <\/span>.<br \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p><b><a href=\"https:\/\/1.next.westlaw.com\/Document\/I4b1e9fd9b27b11d9815db1c9d88f7df2\/View\/FullText.html?originationContext=documenttoc&#038;transitionType=CategoryPageItem&#038;contextData=(sc.Default)\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"Am Jur 2d Divorce and Separation\">Read this complete Am Jur 2d section on Westlaw<\/a><\/b><\/div>\n","protected":false},"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":false,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"class_list":["post-26927","amjur","type-amjur","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reference.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/amjur\/26927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reference.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/amjur"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reference.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/amjur"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reference.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}