Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

condonation

Read a random definition: included offense

A quick definition of condonation:

Condonation is when someone forgives or ignores an action that they are now legally complaining about. This is often used as a defense in divorce cases. For condonation to be valid, the person forgiving must know about the action, reconcile with the offender, and restore all marital rights. The forgiving party must also be treated with kindness. However, if the cause of divorce is a pattern of bad behavior, forgiveness or kindness does not count unless there is an agreement to forgive. If the offender hides other actions that could lead to divorce, the forgiveness is not valid.

A more thorough explanation:

Condonation is a legal defense argument used by someone who has previously forgiven or ignored an act that they are now complaining about. It is often used in cases of divorce.

For example, if a spouse cheats on their partner and the partner forgives them and continues to live with them, they may not be able to use the cheating as grounds for divorce later on.

In order for condonation to be valid, the person forgiving the offense must have knowledge of the facts, reconcile with the offending party, and restore them to all marital rights. The forgiving party must also be treated with kindness.

However, if the cause of divorce is a pattern of offensive behavior or cruelty, forgiveness or endurance does not necessarily constitute condonation unless there is an express agreement to forgive. Additionally, if the offending party conceals other facts that would be grounds for divorce, the condonation may be invalidated.

condominium | condone

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.