The primary goal of the property division column
of the table is to list the year in which each state
recognized property division as an absolute legal
right, rather than a discretionary remedy. In states
where a specific property division statute reversed
case law holding that the court cannot divide
property at all (e.g., North Carolina), determining
this date is simple. In some states, however, the
courts had authority to divide property before 1970,
and reform occurred gradually as the appellate
courts began to construe the existing statute to be
more mandatory and less discretionary. In states
where the shift could be attributed to a single case,
that case has been cited. Where the shift was
gradual, the table simply uses the word "traditional".
A secondary goal of the property division column
is to note whether the state follows dual-
classification equitable distribution, all-property
equitable distribution, or community property.
The goal of the spousal support column of the
table is to list the year in which each state held that
the trial courts may award spousal support for a
limited term of years. Once again, in some states we
find that the courts had this authority all along, and
that the reform occurred when the courts began to
use that authority more often in different types of
cases. Where the shift occurred in a single
case most often one holding that limited-term
alimony can be awarded for the purpose of
rehabilitation the date of that case has been used.
Otherwise, the table again uses the word
"traditional".
| State |
Property Division |
Alimony Reform |
| AL |
traditional (all-property) |
traditional |
| AK |
traditional (dual-classification); pres-ently codified at Alaska Stat. 25.24.160 |
UMDA alimony provision adopted by analogy in Messina v. Messina, 583 P.2d 804 (Alaska1978) |
| AZ |
community property |
UMDA as Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 25-319 (1973) |
| AR |
traditional; dual-classification system
adopted by Ark. Code Ann. 9-12-
315 (1979) |
rehabilitative alimony adopted in Stout v.
Stout, 4 Ark. App. 266, 630 S.W.2d 53
(1982) |
| CA |
community property |
present Cal. Fam. Code 4330 (1969), along
with no-fault divorce |
| CO |
UMDA dual-classification provision
as Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14-10-
113 (1971) |
UMDA as Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14-10-114
(1971) |
| CN |
traditional (all-property) |
traditional |
| DE |
traditional; dual-classification system
adopted by Del. Code Ann. tit. 13,
1513 (1974) |
UMDA alimony provision as Del. Code Ann.
tit. 13, 1512 (1979) |
| DC |
traditional (all-property); presently
codified at D.C. Code Ann. 16-
910 (1977) |
reform not yet enacted |
| FL |
special equity doctrine gradually
expanded by case law into full dual-
classification system; codified by Fla.
Stat. Ann. 61.075 (1988) |
Fla. Stat. Ann. 61.08 (1971), along with no-
fault divorce |
| GA |
traditional; formal dual-
classification system adopted in
Stokes v. Stokes, 246 Ga. 765, 273
S.E.2d 169 (1980) |
traditional |
| HI |
traditional (all-property) |
Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. 580-47(a) (1977) |
| ID |
community property |
UMDA alimony provision as Idaho Code
32-705 (1980) |
| IL |
UMDA dual-classification provision
as present 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.
5/503 (1977) |
UMDA as present 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.
5/504 (1977) |
| IN |
traditional (all-property); codified at
Ind. Code Ann. 31-15-7-1 |
present Ind. Code Ann. 31-15-7-2 (1974);
based on the UMDA |
| IA |
traditional (dual-classification); presently codified at Iowa Code Ann. 598.21 |
traditional |
| KA |
Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1610(B)(1)
(1965) (all-property), along with no-fault divorce |
Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1610(B)(2) (1982) |
| KY |
UMDA dual-classification provision
as Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 403.190
(1972) |
UMDA as Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 403.200
(1972) |
| LA |
community property |
La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 112 (1997) |
| ME |
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, 722-a
(1971) (dual-classification) |
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, 721 (1973) |
| MD |
present Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law,
8-201 et seq. (1984) (dual-classification) |
present Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law 11-106
(1984) |
| MA |
traditional (all-property); greatly
expanded by Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.
ch. 208, 34 (1974) |
rehabilitative alimony recognized in Zildjian v.
Zildjian, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 391 N.E.2d 697
(1979) |
| MI |
traditional (probably dual-classification) |
traditional |
| MN |
UMDA dual-classification provision
as Minn. Stat. Ann. 518.54 (1974) |
UMDA as Minn. Stat. Ann. 518.552 (1974) |
| MS |
dual-classification equitable
distribution adopted by court
decision in Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639
So. 2d 909 (Miss. 1994), and
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d
921 (Miss. 1994) |
rehabilitative alimony recognized in Hubbard v.
Hubbard, 656 So. 2d 124 (Miss. 1995) |
| MO |
UMDA dual-classification provision
as Mo. Ann. Stat. 452.330 (1973) |
UMDA as Mo. Ann. Stat. 452.335 (1973) |
| MT |
UMDA all-property provision as
Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-202 (1975) |
UMDA as Mont. Code Ann. 40-4-203
(1975) |
| NE |
traditional (all-property); codified as
Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. 42-365 |
traditional |
| NV |
community property |
rehabilitative alimony recognized in Johnson
v. Steel, Inc., 94 Nev. 483, 581 P.2d 860
(1978) |
| NH |
traditional (all-property); codified as
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 458:16-a |
traditional |
| NJ |
N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:34-23 (1971)
(dual-classification) |
rehabilitative alimony recognized in Lepis v.
Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 416 A.2d 45, 53 n.9
(1980); codified in N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:34-23
(1988) |
| NM |
community property |
rehabilitative alimony recognized in Seymour
v. Seymour, 89 N.M. 752, 557 P.2d 1101
(1976) |
| NY |
N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law 236 (1980)
(dual-classification) |
N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law 236 (1980) |
| NC |
N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-20 (1981)
(dual-classification) |
N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-16.3A (1995) |
| ND |
traditional (all-property) |
rehabilitative alimony recognized in Carr v.
Carr, 300 N.W.2d 40 (N.D. 1980) (relying on
Bingert v. Bingert, 247 N.W.2d 464 (N.D.
1976), which cited the UMDA) |
| OH |
traditional; formal dual-classification
system adopted by Ohio Rev. Code
Ann. 3105.171 (1991) |
rehabilitative alimony recognized in Koepke v.
Koepke, 12 Ohio App. 3d 80, 466 N.E.2d 570
(1983) (citing a 1980 unreported decision) |
| OK |
traditional (dual-classification);
codified at Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43,
121 |
traditional; codified at Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 41,
134 |
| OR |
traditional (all-property); codified at
Or. Rev. Stat. 107.105 |
rehabilitative alimony recognized in Kitson v.
Kitson, 17 Or. App. 648, 523 P.2d 575
(1974), and Grove v. Grove, 280 Or. 341, 571
P.2d 477 (1977) |
| PA |
present 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann.
3501 (1980) (dual-classification) |
present 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. 3701 (1980) |
| RI |
R.I. Gen. Laws 15-5-16.1 (1981)
(dual-classification) |
rehabilitative alimony recognized in D’Agostino v. D’Agostino, 463 A.2d 200 (R.I. 1983) |
| SC |
dual-classification equitable
distribution adopted by court
decision in Parrott v. Parrott, 278
S.C. 60, 292 S.E.2d 182 (1982);
codified at S.C. Code Ann. 20-7-
471 (1986) |
rehabilitative alimony recognized in Eagerton
v. Eagerton, 285 S.C. 279, 328 S.E.2d 912
(Ct. App. 1985) (citing the UMDA), and in
Herring v. Herring, 286 S.C. 447, 335 S.E.2d
366 (1985) |
| SD |
traditional (all-property); codified at
S.D. Codified Laws 25-4-44 |
S.D. Codified Laws 25-4-41 (1977) |
| TN |
traditional; dual-classification system
adopted by Tenn. Code Ann. 36-4-
121 (1983) |
Tenn. Code Ann. 36-5-101 (1984) |
| TX |
community property |
present Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 8.001 (1995),
the first Texas statute ever to permit awards
of alimony |
| UT |
traditional |
traditional |
| VT |
traditional |
UMDA alimony provision adopted as Vt.
Stat. Ann. tit. 15, 15-752 (1981) |
| VA |
Va. Code Ann. 20-107.3 (1982)
(dual-classification) |
Va. Code Ann. 20-107.1 (1998) |
| WA |
community property; UMDA all-
property provision adopted as Wash.
Admin. Code 29.09.080 (1973) |
traditional; UMDA adopted as Wash. Rev.
Code Ann. 29.09.090 (1973) |
| WV |
equitable distribution adopted by
court decision in LaRue v. LaRue, 172
W. Va. 158, 304 S.E.2d 312 (1983);
codified at W. Va. Code Ann. 48-2-32 (1984) |
Molnar v. Molnar, 173 W. Va. 200, 314
S.E.2d 73 (1984) |
| WI |
traditional; dual-classification system
adopted by Wis. Stat. Ann.
767.255 (1977) |
Wis. Stat. Ann. 767.26 (1977) |
| WY |
traditional (all-property); codified at
Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-114 |
Young v. Young, 472 P.2d 784 (Wyo. 1970) |