Marriage and Some Troubling Issues With No-Fault Divorce

The purpose of this Article is to challenge these erroneous assumptions, that fault is no longer an issue in modem American divorce law, and that a spouse on divorce should not be compensated for his or her non-economic contributions to the marriage and to the well-being of the family

Bottoms v. Bottoms: In Whose Best Interest? Analysis of a Lesbian Mother Child Custody Dispute

This Article traces and analyzes the series of legal and factual events leading up to the Virginia Supreme Court\u27s contradictory and controversial decision in Bottoms v. Bottoms

Insurance Binders Revisited

Temporary contracts of insurance-binders-protect the insured during the time between completion of the application and issuance of the policy. They are an accepted and necessary part of the insurance business, used in connection with a wide variety of insurance P7:oducts. But when alleged coverage under a binder is the subject of litigation, the results are often inconsistent and, sometimes, indefensible. This article provides a comprehensive discussion of binders, including the differences between standard form and manuscript binders, binding receipts in property and casualty insurance and conditional receipts in life insurance policies, the various kinds of conditional receipts, and otherwise. The author concludes with recommendations as to how to ensure greater consistency in binder coverage litigation

The Last-in-Time Marriage Presumption

The typical scenario for the last-in-time marriage presumption is not as unusual as one might expect: A husband (or wife) has unexpectedly died, and the bereaved surviving spouse is in the process of bringing a legal proceeding that may include a probate action, a wrongful death action, a suit for social security benefits, a workers\u27 compensation action, a life insurance action, or another legal action for related compensatory, probate, or insurance benefits. However, during the pendency of these actions a former wife comes forward, claiming that she has never been divorced from her deceased spouse and that she, rather than the subsequent wife, should recover in any legal proceeding as the legal wife. Which wife should prevail? To many, the initial conclusion might be that because American family law in the vast majority of states prohibits bigamy and other plural marriages, the first-in-time spouse should recover all the proceeds. But this conclusion would be wrong. The last-in-time marriage presumption is based upon one of the strongest presumptions known to the law that an existing marriage, once shown, is valid. A subsequent marriage, therefore, raises the very strong presumption that any former marriage was terminated by death, annulment, or divorce. Once this presumption arises, the former spouse has the burden of proving that no death, annulment, or divorce occurred to terminate the prior marriage. Thus, if the former spouse fails to rebut this last-in-time marriage presumption by searching all divorce records where the deceased resided, or might reasonably have resided, the subsequent spouse will prevail. This marital presumption is based not upon logical arguments, but upon underlying public policy arguments, and the last-in-time marriage presumption therefore continues to be recognized and applied in current judicial decisions as well. Surprisingly, for a presumption that is often characterized as one of the strongest known to the law, there has been very little legal analysis regarding this unique marriage presumption. This article, therefore, analyzes and discusses the theoretical and practical aspects of the last-in-time marriage presumption by examining its underlying rationale, and the legal result when the last-in-time presumption conflicts with other legal presumptions. The article then discusses the availability and application of the last-in-time marriage presumption including who can invoke it, when it becomes available, and the various kinds of legal actions where it may properly be utilized. The article further addresses burden of proof issues involving the last-in-time marriage presumption, including the factual elements that must be proven and the standard and quality of proof which must be established to overcome the presumption. Finally, an analysis of the case of Hewitt v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company will illustrate the underlying principles, application, and defenses involving the last-in-time marriage presumptio

Teaching Legal Reasoning in Law School

With the understanding that reasonable scholars and critics may differ, it is nevertheless this article\u27s contention that law schools today must still strive to teach the basic logical principles-and process-of legal reasoning. By analogy, a swimmer must learn at least a few basic strokes in order to survive in his new environment. The same is true with law students and legal reasoning. An elementary foundation in legal reasoning skills, limited though it may be, is still better than nothing at all-especially when the latter alternative offers only confusion and misunderstanding. The purpose of this article is to discuss one such approach in teaching the principles and process of legal reasoning to first year students at the University of Richmond Law School. Although the author realizes that this is only one of many approaches to the subject in question, it is hoped that some of the fundamental assumptions within this discussion may serve as a catalyst for teaching legal reasoning techniques in other schools as well

The Insurable Interest Requirement For Life Insurance: A Critical Reassessment

The purpose of this Article is to critically reassess the insurable interest requirement in life insurance coverage disputes in light of the present needs of contemporary American society, including analysis of: (1) legal interpretations and underlying public policy rationales supporting such an insurable interest; (2) who is legally entitled to an insurable interest in the life of another; (3) when an insurable interest must exist; (4) when an insurable interest is-or should be-extinguished; (5) who may challenge the lack of an insurable interest; (6) whether an insurable interest in life insurance is subject to waiver or estoppel defenses; and (7) whether or not an applicant for life insurance should be informed of this insurable interest requirement. The Author will also present a number of recommendations impacting present-day life insurance law and practice, and further advocate for a number of long-needed changes in business-related life insurance, including the requirement that an insurable interest in another\u27s life be present both at the time of the policy inception and at the time of his or her death

Reassessing Fault Factors In No-Fault Divorce

The purpose of this article is not to turn back the clock through the rehabilitation of fault grounds as the sole means for securing a divorce in America. Rather, this article will explore the ways in which fault-based factors, when applied to serious or egregious marital misconduct that significantly contributes to the marital breakdown, may still be utilized in order to bring about enhanced social, economic, and legal protection to spouses on divorce, while concurrently establishing a greater sense of responsibility and accountability in marital relationships

A Dedication To B.J. Brabham

The University of Richmond Law Review respectfully dedicates this issue to the memory of Professor B.J. Brabham, 1930-1995. Professor Brabham was a member of the faculty ofthe TC.Williams School of Law from 1973 until 1992 and is remembered here by colleague Peter Swisher