Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Enoch Arden doctrine

Read a random definition: ad manum

A quick definition of Enoch Arden doctrine:

The Enoch Arden Doctrine is a law in some states that says if one spouse thinks the other is dead and remarries, but the original spouse comes back, the marrying spouse can get a divorce or permission to remarry. The law usually requires a certain amount of time to pass, like seven years, before this can happen. It's named after a poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

A more thorough explanation:

The Enoch Arden Doctrine is a law in some states that deals with situations where a spouse marries another person, believing that their original spouse is dead. If the original spouse returns after a certain period of time, the marrying spouse may be able to get a divorce or a legal exemption to remarry.

The name of the law comes from a poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, called "Enoch Arden," which tells the story of a sailor who is shipwrecked and believed to be dead by his wife and children. Enoch returns years later to find that his wife has remarried and has a new family.

The length of time required for the Enoch Arden Doctrine to apply varies depending on the laws of the state. In most cases, it is around seven years.

For example, if John and Jane are married and John goes missing, Jane may believe that he is dead and eventually marry another person. If John returns after seven years, Jane may be able to get a divorce or a legal exemption to remarry the new person.

The Enoch Arden Doctrine is designed to provide a legal solution for situations where a spouse is missing and presumed dead. It allows the marrying spouse to move on with their life without fear of legal repercussions if the missing spouse returns.

enjoyment | enrolled agent (EA)

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
17:36
@Dkk: Fair enough, but if you're using political philosophy to defend Trump, it's hard to reconcile him as a candidate with very relevant classic political theory, like Locke's individual rights and limited government as illustrated in the 2nd treatise, or the constitutional framework limiting executive power (e.g., Federalist 51). Trump's disregard for constitutional checks and populist rhetoric directly is in tension with our very foundational principles.
Dkk
17:36
@SplitterusClitterus: sounds good. Trying to paint a wine glass rn anyway after I just woke up.
Dkk
17:37
@texaslawhopefully: Psssh I would not use gender relations as a way to defend Trump. He does not go that route and I think literally him and everyone in their cabinet has no idea what those are. I mean, just look at how many divorces Elon and Trump have had.
texaslawhopefully
17:38
Was that not why you said you voted for him?
17:38
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: can I ask what “2 years retroactive withdrawals” means
17:39
elon and trump realize there are many fish in the sea, and sometimes u can't just 'make it work'
@sadpadresfan: grades changed to W for two consecutive years of classes
Dkk
17:39
Nah, I did not vote. I have never voted in my life because I have a lot of issues with it. 4 years ago my mom filled out my ballot for me because she wanted to but I do not vote.
17:40
based fellow non voter
@llama i do not need or desire external validation.
17:40
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: ah I see
17:41
@LawIsForPeasants: ok, sorry, I will not bother u while u 'self validate yourself in the corner' my bad.
@llama: im self validating so hard rn
17:42
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: thats very ithica of you, wasp.
texaslawhopefully
17:44
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: Out of curiosity, since you're in law school and prolly know fedsoc people, how conservative do you think you have to be to be in fedsoc? Like is a david french sort of conservative fairly common in it, or is it the maga type people mainly
i dont interact with any fedsoc people, but i dont know any maga people at cornell. but the student body overwhelmingly leans left, so i think they might not be comfortable showing that theyre conservative if that makes sense?
one time a guy kind of crashed out about masks in conlaw
but that's the most ive seen
texaslawhopefully
17:47
Yeah, that does make sense. I would like to join fedsoc, but I'm also, clearly, very opposed to Trump and where the GOP has gone.
if you join fedsoc and go for clerking and eventually become a judge. you will be pinholed into maga politics as long as maga is the predominant conservative stance
Idk if @irishdinosaur is online but congrats on UCLA!!
next you will say you want to be the first black kkk grand wizard
@SaddestPortlander: tysm!!!!
texaslawhopefully
18:00
yes congrats irishdinosaur! that's incredible
18:03
@IrishDinosaur: you inspire me and my completely misguided cope that I might ever get into UCLA
Super big congrats irish!!!
Also pretty much agree with Wasp. I think it’s more about getting the political/judicial position as a Fedsoc member that will likely require a stance siding with whatever the conservative majority party is at that time.
texaslawhopefully
18:07
Yeah, that's fair. I guess I need to think about it more assuming I start law school in the fall. I really want to clerk and that seems like the best option.
BUT i think once you get the position, you’ll have more leeway in making decisions more liberally. Sort of like how ACB and Gorsuch sometimes swing left after being portreayed in the media as far right (not sure if that was actually the case though).
From the perspective of someone who interned at the White House, I will add that my bosses always told me to “be careful about my resume.” Don’t want to align with any org that doesn’t fit your values because you won’t be trusted by the other side until you show them you’re legit again, and word travels in DC.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.