No fault divorce, the biggest idiocy of all times ?

[DanP]

I was looking at this fox News report regarding Bullock / James scandal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgG9ZWaSZrE&feature=popular

it seems to me that family laws, presumably thought to protect and encourage the institution of family are becoming the biggest reason not to ever get married in many states around the world.

It would be really annoying to see James walk away with half of what Bullock produced during the 5 years of marriage and pretty unfair.

But generally speaking, why should one support an ex spouse in any way whatsoever, fault or no fault ? You get married, you get divorced, that's it, if there are no children both should walk away with their fortunes regardless if it was pre or post marriage income.
It;s idiotic to ask a man to support his ex-wife. Those laws seem determined to kill the marriage , not to strengthen it. Only a lunatic would consider marriage with such laws.

 

[zomgwtf]

This was all Fox speculation, no news reporting done that I can see.

 

[DanP]

This was all Fox speculation, no news reporting done that I can see.

Maybe, but no fault laws are not Fox speculations. Hopefully Bullock has a bulletproof prenup.

And then again, why would any sane person (not only celebrities) get married with such laws without a prenuptial cast in stone ? Why should anyone pay alimony ?

 

[zomgwtf]

Maybe, but no fault laws are not Fox speculations. Hopefully Bullock has a bulletproof prenup.

And then again, why would any sane person (not only celebrities) get married with such laws without a prenuptial cast in stone ? Why should anyone pay alimony ?

I'm pretty sure it all depends on time your with the person and stuff as well. It has nothing to do with a sane person questioning marriage. It has to do with a sane person not getting married once every 7 years. The entire purpose of marriage is to be one with the person, it's a religious sacrament and if you read religious scriptures that's specifically what marriage entails.

So if you don't want to be at 'one' with a person then don't marry them. If you do marry them and they screw you over then expect that everything earned while you were 'one' with the person to be equally theres.

 

[DanP]

I'm pretty sure it all depends on time your with the person and stuff as well. It has nothing to do with a sane person questioning marriage. It has to do with a sane person not getting married once every 7 years. The entire purpose of marriage is to be one with the person, it's a religious sacrament and if you read religious scriptures that's specifically what marriage entails.

Sorry, I don't buy the religious part. Marriage it's a civil contract. Church didn't granted divorces anyway in past, so the issue of somebody walking away with your hard earned money was not really a possibility. And it's 2010, not 1400. We should stop citing religious scriptures for things which affect our lives.

We seen the light and allowed couples to divorce relatively easy. Maybe is time to put an end to laws which grant support to ex-spouses. There is no wonder that more and more couples choose not to enter marriage, not even when children enter the equation.

So if you don't want to be at 'one' with a person then don't marry them. If you do marry them and they screw you over then expect that everything earned while you were 'one' with the person to be equally theres.

This is a very antiquated view. Half of the marriages in our society fail from one reason or another. Unfortunately, with civil laws like no fault divorce, the society really makes it hard
to enter a marriage. Why would you after all ? With common sense legislation, maybe, it's worth trying to build a family.

 

[turbo]

The best thing Bullock and James can do is avoid divorce lawyers like the plague, save those millions and the messiness, and part as amicably as possible. In CA, spousal support following dissolution of a short-duration marriage is limited to no more than half the duration of the marriage, though James should refuse even that option and walk away. His tattooed mistress won't make his high-dollar clients for custom bikes blink an eye. He can come out of this looking badder and more famous than before.

 

[zomgwtf]

Sorry, I don't buy the religious part. Marriage it's a civil contract. Church didn't granted divorces anyway in past, so the issue of somebody walking away with your hard earned money was not really a possibility. And it's 2010, not 1400. We should stop citing religious scriptures for things which affect our lives.

We seen the light and allowed couples to divorce relatively easy. Maybe is time to put an end to laws which grant support to ex-spouses. There is no wonder that more and more couples choose not to enter marriage, not even when children enter the equation.

That's exactly the problem, people enter marriages NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE. Who cares if it's 2010 or 1400? It's still a marriage and it's purpose has always been the same. As well when talking about MARRIAGE you have to understand where it came from, which would be RELIGIONS/SPIRTUAL systems. It came from religion and it came with a purpose. Just because you don't like religion (assumption from the way you talk) has no bearing on the fact that it came from religion for a specific purpose and we still utilize it today.
It doesn't matter if you see it as being a 'civil contract' under law or whatever, that's modern it's not where marriage comes from and it doesn't change its PURPOSE.

This is a very antiquated view. Half of the marriages in our society fail from one reason or another. Unfortunately, with civil laws like no fault divorce, the society really makes it hard
to enter a marriage. Why would you after all ? With common sense legislation, maybe, it's worth trying to build a family.

Marriages should be hard to enter, that's the entire point. You do not enter a marriage with someone merely for the purpose of 'making a family', that's STUPID.

 

[DanP]

That's exactly the problem, people enter marriages NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE. Who cares if it's 2010 or 1400? It's still a marriage and it's purpose has always been the same. As well when talking about MARRIAGE you have to understand where it came from, which would be RELIGIONS/SPIRTUAL systems.

I don't see it as a problem. Religion is not part of my life. Frankly I don't care for the marriage spiritual part. The world has changed. Trying to keep things in antiquated mystical forms is nothing but a factor delaying progress towards a better world.

Today, we allow gay ppl to get married. We *legally* recognize them the right which religion denies. World changes.
Marriage slowly becomes what it should be: strictly civil union.

Marriages should be hard to enter, that's the entire point. You do not enter a marriage with someone merely for the purpose of 'making a family', that's STUPID.

Nor you enter a marriage for some mystical religious reason. Thats mighty STUPID and antiquated. Much more stupid than entering a marriage to form a family and raise some kids.

 

[D H]

But generally speaking, why should one support an ex spouse in any way whatsoever, fault or no fault ? You get married, you get divorced, that's it, if there are no children both should walk away with their fortunes regardless if it was pre or post marriage income.

You get married and there is no longer a "his" and "hers". The correct term is "ours" -- unless of course you wrote a rock-solid pre-nup that not only covered wealth accrued prior to getting married but also wealth accrued while being married. If you are that paranoid about getting married, why get married?

 

[mgb_phys]

Simple - make marriage licenses renewable, just like driving licenses or dog licenses.

 

[DanP]

You get married and there is no longer a "his" and "hers". The correct term is "ours" -- unless of course you wrote a rock-solid pre-nup that not only covered wealth accrued prior to getting married but also wealth accrued while being married.

Because we live in a world where success of a marriage is pretty much heads or tails. Laws should reflect this social reality. Wealth is not easy to acquire.

 

[jobyts]

Simple - make marriage licenses renewable, just like driving licenses.

Am I allowed to drive many cars with one license?

 

[DanP]

Am I allowed to drive many cars with one license?

Yes but your insurance goes way up

 

[NeoDevin]

But generally speaking, why should one support an ex spouse in any way whatsoever, fault or no fault ? You get married, you get divorced, that's it, if there are no children both should walk away with their fortunes regardless if it was pre or post marriage income.
It;s idiotic to ask a man to support his ex-wife. Those laws seem determined to kill the marriage , not to strengthen it. Only a lunatic would consider marriage with such laws.

The laws are based on the assumption that both partners contribute equally to the marriage, even if they do not contribute equally financially.

If one partner decides to forego pursuing their own career in favour of keeping house/preparing meals every day, raising children, while the other partner pursues a career to support them both financially. Presumably, both partners have agreed that this is an equitable division of labour for the duration of the marriage. Upon divorce, however, the partner who was the house-wife/house-husband would be left with nothing, despite having been an "equal" contributor.

 

[NeoDevin]

zomgwtf, you're way off on marriage having it's roots in any religion.

Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.

One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access. Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage. But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."

In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife. Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".

Forms of group marriage which involve more than one member of each sex, and therefore are not either polygyny or polyandry, have existed in history. However, these forms of marriage are extremely rare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History"

 

[DaveC426913]

Simple - make marriage licenses renewable, just like driving licenses or dog licenses.

Awesome idea!

Any you wouldn't be allowed to renew until you'd paid off all outstanding moving violations and passed a clean emissions check.

 

[mgb_phys]

And it would make some husbands a lot more attentive come the wedding anniversary (or at least help them remember the date)

 

[MotoH]

Awesome idea!

Any you wouldn't be allowed to renew until you'd paid off all outstanding moving violations and passed a clean emissions check.

I like to take a classical car for a drive every now and then. Will I no longer be able to take old cars for drives because they do not pass the emission standards?

 

[DaveC426913]

And it would make some husbands a lot more attentive come the wedding anniversary (or at least help them remember the date)

Yep. If you're not paid up on renewal date, you're pulled off the road.

 

[DanP]

The laws are based on the assumption that both partners contribute equally to the marriage, even if they do not contribute equally financially.

If one partner decides to forego pursuing their own career in favour of keeping house/preparing meals every day, raising children, while the other partner pursues a career to support them both financially. Presumably, both partners have agreed that this is an equitable division of labour for the duration of the marriage. Upon divorce, however, the partner who was the house-wife/house-husband would be left with nothing, despite having been an "equal" contributor.

The problem is that those laws apply in other cases as well, when no children are involved.

In the problem with stay at home moms, their contribution by doing so can be easily quantified. It doesn't mandate any kind of support after divorce, it only mandate a fair division of the common goods, taking in consideration how many years she spent raising the kids and making you food.

 

[NeoDevin]

The problem is that those laws apply in other cases as well, when no children are involved.

In the problem with stay at home moms, their contribution by doing so can be easily quantified. It doesn't mandate any kind of support after divorce, it only mandate a fair division of the common goods, taking in consideration how many years she spent raising the kids and making you food.

And the spouse who is without a career or an income because they stayed home?

As an example: My wife currently runs a business, while I'm a student. Our plan is that once I am finished school, and have a good job, she will close the business to be a house-wife/stay home mom. This is what she wants to do, while I would prefer to work than worry about housework. If, hypothetically, we were to get divorced in 15 years, why should she suffer with little-to-no income, when, had she been working at a career/business the whole time, she would have a not-insignificant income. Meanwhile, I will have had 15 years to focus on my career, without having to spend any of my time on housekeeping, etc. How do you take into consideration the many years she will have spent unemployed, not learning new employable skills?

In the absence of a prior agreement, both partners are assumed to be equal contributors to the marriage, and thus they both deserve to leave the marriage on equal footing.

Note that I don't agree that alimony should be "half of one's income for the rest of one's life". I think a decreasing percentage over time, starting at 50%, would be more reasonable, to reflect the former stay-at-home spouses increasing ability to earn an income for themselves as time progresses (the decrease should be fixed, and not dependant on the stay-at-home's actual income, to discourage laziness/mooching). Maybe 50%, decreasing by 10%/year or so.

 

[DanP]

And the spouse who is without a career or an income because they stayed home?

As an example: My wife currently runs a business, while I'm a student. Our plan is that once I am finished school, and have a good job, she will close the business to be a house-wife/stay home mom. This is what she wants to do, while I would prefer to work than worry about housework. If, hypothetically, we were to get divorced in 15 years, why should she suffer with little-to-no income, when, had she been working at a career/business the whole time, she would have a not-insignificant income. Meanwhile, I will have had 15 years to focus on my career, without having to spend any of my time on housekeeping, etc. How do you take into consideration the many years she will have spent unemployed, not learning new employable skills?

In the absence of a prior agreement, both partners are assumed to be equal contributors to the marriage, and thus they both deserve to leave the marriage on equal footing.

Note that I don't agree that alimony should be "half of one's income for the rest of one's life". I think a decreasing percentage over time, starting at 50%, would be more reasonable, to reflect the former stay-at-home spouses increasing ability to earn an income for themselves as time progresses (the decrease should be fixed, and not dependant on the stay-at-home's actual income, to discourage laziness/mooching). Maybe 50%, decreasing by 10%/year or so.

As I said, any lawyer worth his salt can quantify income, contribution lost to retirement founds and so on. It is done many times in pre-nuptials. Whats fair it's fair, and that's it.
Division of the so called common goods should be subject to this as well. Subsequent support should be a big 0.

Furthermore, no alimony whatsoever should be awarded in the case when both spouses worked. The standard of living during marriage was an advantage of the marriage itself. Upon termination, is it unfair to ask a part to maintain the living style of an ex-spouse who , despite that it works, can only afford to live to lower standards.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No fault divorce technically only means that either spouse may seek a divorce without showing fault by their partner. Pre-No-Fault in order to get a divorce you had to prove that your partner had broken the marriage contract otherwise you couldn't get a divorce.

The trade off here is that by making it "no fault" then neither party is at blame and neither party can be penalized.

 

[DanP]

No fault divorce technically only means that either spouse may seek a divorce without showing fault by their partner. Pre-No-Fault in order to get a divorce you had to prove that your partner had broken the marriage contract otherwise you couldn't get a divorce.

Which is fair, ppl shouldn't be forced to stay in a marriage.

The trade off here is that by making it "no fault" then neither party is at blame and neither party can be penalized.

Yeah. So dissolute the union, and let them go forward with their lives. Quantify the potential obligations, and that's it.

No ulterior support. No-one to blame, no one to have any further obligations. (Save for cases for children are present).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yeah. So dissolute the union, and let them go forward with their lives. Quantify the potential obligations, and that's it.

No ulterior support. No-one to blame, no one to have any further obligations. (Save for cases for children are present).

Alimony is typically considered part of the obligations. I do think that the amount is dependent upon certain factors such as how much each person makes at their job or what have you though this probably varies from place to place. I would agree though that if a person does not need alimony then they should not get any.

The big issue is that, short a prenup contract, any property gained during the marriage is automatically communal property. So any thing you gained such as savings, investments, a car, a house, ect are all the property of both persons and the court needs to decide how to deal with that.

Divorces are just messy.

 

[Char. Limit]

Maybe if people made sure that the person they were marrying was the person they wanted to spend their life with, divorce would be unneccesary.

I think that there should be some sort of examination or counseling BEFORE marriage, to prevent accidents during it.

Ah, the cool, heated eye of an outsider.

 

[DanP]

The big issue is that, short a prenup contract, any property gained during the marriage is automatically communal property. So any thing you gained such as savings, investments, a car, a house, ect are all the property of both persons and the court needs to decide how to deal with that.

Divorces are just messy.

Yes. And it is unfair. Ideas that married couples are "one" and that marriage is somehow a mystical union where maybe fit in 1400, but they are becoming obsolete in today's society. The basis for considering anything produced during the marriage as common property doesn't exist in reality. Its enforced, and probably can be traced to times when religion ruled the world.

Divorce laws should be changed to reflect the reality of today. Wealth is not easy to come by.

After those laws, if a prenup doesn't exist, Bullock gets what ? She gets to be cheated, and the state , by the virtue of it's laws, further punish the victim by stripping her of millions of dollars from her income during the 5 years of marriage. Really ?

Maybe if people made sure that the person they were marrying was the person they wanted to spend their life with, divorce would be unneccesary.

Yeah. If only life would be perfect, there would be no disease, no poor ppl , no pain and cows would fly.
Time for a reality check. It doesn't happen

As for counseling, gimme a break. Who cares. You shouldn't impose anything on humans. Easy marriage and easy divorce with no fuss, this is the future.

ADD:

Pre marriage consulting is offered by many couple therapists. It is an option for the couples who want to spend a serious chunk of their money on a preventive counseling. However, its not mandatory, and it shouldn't ever be made mandatory by laws.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Maybe if people made sure that the person they were marrying was the person they wanted to spend their life with, divorce would be unneccesary.

I think that there should be some sort of examination or counseling BEFORE marriage, to prevent accidents during it.

Ah, the cool, heated eye of an outsider.

I used to think along similar lines too. But that was back when I figured that I would never want to get married anyway. Now that I have more experience with red tape and have actually considered marriage, to a woman who dumped me no less, I really don't think that I would want anyone telling me what inane hoops I have to jump through to marry.

Yes. And it is unfair. Ideas that married couples are "one" and that marriage is somehow a mystical union where maybe fit in 1400, but they are becoming obsolete in today's society. The basis for considering anything produced during the marriage as common property doesn't exist in reality. Its enforced, and probably can be traced to times when religion ruled the world.

Divorce laws should be changed to reflect the reality of today. Wealth is not easy to come by.

After those laws, if a prenup doesn't exist, Bullock gets what ? She gets to be cheated, and the state , by the virtue of it's laws, further punish the victim by stripping her of millions of dollars from her income during the 5 years of marriage. Really ?

It is common to different types of contract. You don't even have to get married for this to happen, just sign a contract with the wrong person. If you do not want to risk your property being taken by a person you should not have trusted then you shouldn't have entered into the contract.

As opposed to the type of counseling that Char suggests maybe all soon to be married individuals ought to receive some legal counseling. ;-)

 

[DanP]

It is common to different types of contract. You don't even have to get married for this to happen, just sign a contract with the wrong person. If you do not want to risk your property being taken by a person you should not have trusted then you shouldn't have entered into the contract.

However, there are striking differences in those situations. The legal system has ample provisions in contracts of civil (family laws excluded) and commercial law. Some breaches of trust in those systems may be even of criminal nature.

Im not saying that adultery should be made a misdemeanor or so. Everybody has to have the right to have sex with whoever she / he chooses, regardless of the marital status. Furthermore, everybody should have the right of dissolving marriage at any time, on no other pretenses than "irreconcilable differences".

What I am saying that divorce laws should adapt to the social reality, and have a through revision of what can constitute common property, minimize it's extent, and minimize any support obligations towards an ex-spouse. Save for the cases where children are involved, those should be 0. I simply don't care if the quality of life of an ex-spouse diminishes after marriage. So what ? Stay married if you want the standard of life. If you choose to leave, Ok, all good, but accept the potential changes in your life standard. Adapt. Your ex-spouse is not there to cuddle you from a financial point of view and feed you, while you spread with another man/ women in bed. The only obligations whatsoever should be linked to child support.

The whole argument "if you trusted the wrong person, you deserve what's coming to you" is fundamentally flawed. It's a big problem in our mentality today. In extrema cases, this psychology is at work when we assign blame to the victim in criminal cases. On the lines "she is such a teaser, she wears such short skirts, so yeah, she holds a significant part of blame for the fact she was raped".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

However, there are striking differences in those situations. The legal system has ample provisions in contracts of civil (family laws excluded) and commercial law. Some breaches of trust in those systems may be even of criminal nature.

Criminal conduct is not necessary. A partner in a contract may simply not do what you expected of them and reap more benefits than you would like based on their action or lack thereof. Without clearly defined conditions (such as a prenup in the case of marriage) you can not legally expect a person to act as you would prefer. Of course social conditioning makes most of us see prenuptial agreements as bad.

The whole argument "if you trusted the wrong person, you deserve what's coming to you" is fundamentally flawed. It's a big problem in our mentality today. In extrema cases, this psychology is at work when we assign blame to the victim in criminal cases. On the lines "she is such a teaser, she wears such short skirts, so yeah, she holds a significant part of blame for the fact she was raped".

If you enter into a legal contract with someone and simply trust them to do as you expect then that is on you. A person does not need to have done anything illegal or ethically reprehensible to have basis for divorce. You also seem to not consider the person who victimizes their spouse and requests a divorce themself. I led you to believe that I loved you Dan and then I changed my mind and split after assuring you that you didn't need that lousy job of yours and that I would take care of you. How do you feel about that?

 

[DanP]

You also seem to not consider the person who victimizes their spouse and requests a divorce themself. I led you to believe that I loved you Dan and then I changed my mind and split after assuring you that you didn't need that lousy job of yours and that I would take care of you. How do you feel about that?

If you are a stay at home mom or dad, there are compensations which can be fairly awarded, on the schema I outlined before, calculating potential income, lost contributions to retirement funds, and so on.

In rest it is my believe that both partners should work. If they choose not too, and let themselves being supported (you can be still supported if you have a low income and your spouse earns a fortune even if you work a modest job, your sugarmomi can buy you all cool toys and sport cars ) then they didn't brought anything in the marriage anyway, so who cares :P

So yeah, I wouldn't care if it happens to me. Life, shake the dust, and go forward. What else can you do?

 

[BobG]

Note that I don't agree that alimony should be "half of one's income for the rest of one's life". I think a decreasing percentage over time, starting at 50%, would be more reasonable, to reflect the former stay-at-home spouses increasing ability to earn an income for themselves as time progresses (the decrease should be fixed, and not dependant on the stay-at-home's actual income, to discourage laziness/mooching). Maybe 50%, decreasing by 10%/year or so.

I don't think alimony would ever be half of one's income, although alimony plus child support could come close. A more realistic estimate would be around a third of the difference in incomes (and even a person that's been a stay at home mom will be expected to hold at least a minimum wage job).

And the duration does depend on how long the marriage lasted. Most people aren't going to get alimony for a short marriage (less than 5 years). Alimony usually lasts for somewhere around half the duration of the marriage unless you've been married around 20 years or more.

Of course, there's other ways to get hit, too. Pensions, retirement funds, stocks are assets that get split, as well.

Everything combined, the ex siphons off about $24k a year from me and there is no child support since the kids are grown. If you take the average amount of time she actually spent at home before I divorced her, it costs me about $200 a day to make her stay away completely. I should be a little more bitter than I am.

 

[Evo]

I don't think alimony would ever be half of one's income, although alimony plus child support could come close. A more realistic estimate would be around a third of the difference in incomes (and even a person that's been a stay at home mom will be expected to hold at least a minimum wage job).

And the duration does depend on how long the marriage lasted. Most people aren't going to get alimony for a short marriage (less than 5 years). Alimony usually lasts for somewhere around half the duration of the marriage unless you've been married around 20 years or more.

Of course, there's other ways to get hit, too. Pensions, retirement funds, stocks are assets that get split, as well.

Everything combined, the ex siphons off about $24k a year from me and there is no child support since the kids are grown. If you take the average amount of time she actually spent at home before I divorced her, it costs me about $200 a day to make her stay away completely. I should be a little more bitter than I am.

I got my first divorce in Texas and there is no alimony. You can file for limited support if you are uneducated and never worked due to marrying and being a stay at home spouse. But the money isn't much, enough to pay for some vocational training for a couple of years. Since I made more than my husband when I divorced, I had to pay him, even though he was set to inherit a fortune, that was not something I could get a split of. :(

 

[BobG]

Im not saying that adultery should be made a misdemeanor or so. Everybody has to have the right to have sex with whoever she / he chooses, regardless of the marital status. Furthermore, everybody should have the right of dissolving marriage at any time, on no other pretenses than "irreconcilable differences".

This is the definition of no fault divorce.

I think you have a problem with how the financial settlements in divorce work out, not no fault divorce.

Divorce in states that don't have no fault divorce is even more convoluted. The divorcing couple gets to decide who is going to be the one at fault and what the fault should be, even when there is no other reason than they can't stand living with each other anymore.

In New York (I think it's the only state that doesn't have any kind of no fault divorce), that means one of the couple gets to be guilty of "cruel and inhuman treatment" just so they can finish the divorce in a reasonable amount of time. And the longer the marriage, the more severe the level of mental cruelty has to be. A person can't even choose to be guilty of "adultery" unless they can find someone who will say they had sex with them (it has to be corroborated by a third party - admitting adultery isn't enough).

And things like alimony, etc are barely affected, if at all, by who is at fault. Sometimes, the decision about who will be the at fault party simply depends on who's bothered by it the least or who wants the divorce more.

The alternative is to get a legal separation (about the same cost as divorce), live separate for a year, and then eventually get the separation converted to a divorce (which also means paying the legal costs a second time).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think you have a problem with how the financial settlements in divorce work out, not no fault divorce.

Its sort of linked. Saying it's no fault essentially leaves it up to the court to figure out what an "equitable" split of the finances should be if you two can not decide on your own.