Property and inheritance rights address women’s and gender minorities’ access to ownership and inheritance of land, housing, and assets.
The 2011 Amendments to the Jamaican Constitution specifically enumerated a “right to freedom from discrimination on the ground of . . . being male or female.” The amendments also guaranteed a number of fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, and protection of the right to own property, receive an education, vote, and speak freely.
Pennsylvania is an equitable distribution state, which means the court will “equitably and fairly” divide, distribute, or assign the marital property between the parties, regardless of marital misconduct. “Marital property” generally means all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage. All property acquired by a spouse during their marriage is presumed to be marital property regardless of how title is held.
The determination of the nature, amount, and duration of alimony in the state of Pennsylvania is based on the court’s weighing of several factors. Among the factors considered by the court in its alimony determination are the following: (1) the relative earnings of the parties; (2) the ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (3) the sources of income of both parties, including, but not limited to, medical, retirement, insurance, or other benefits; (4) the expectancies and inheritances of the parties; (5) the duration of the marriage; (6) the contrib
Pennsylvania uses a system referred to as the “Income Shares Model” for determining child support. This methodology focuses primarily on the net incomes of the parents and aims to grant the children the same proportion of the parental income that he or she would have received had the parents not divorced. These guidelines were updated in 2026 to reflect increased net income caps and an increase in financial responsibility for each child.
The legal question is whether the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice should intervene in the ruling of the Great Rabbinical Court or not. The husband (“respondent 3”) owned an apartment and had no intention of sharing the ownership with the petitioner in a divorce case, which was first submitted to the Regional Rabbinical Court.
The AE Act removed inheritance laws unfavorable to widows in civil and registered customary marriages. It recognizes a union contracted according to customary rites, even without formal registration under the Customary Marriages Act of 1951 (currently under Parliamentary review as of July 17, 2019). The AE Act provides that the property of an estate is to be divided by the surviving spouse and the children, regardless of the sex of the children. It also stipulates that a widow whose husband died intestate retains rights to the family’s land upon the death of her husband.
In the Ogiek case, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights held that Kenya had violated multiple provisions of the African Charter by forcibly evicting the Ogiek, an indigenous forest-dwelling community, from their ancestral lands in the Mau Forest Complex without consultation, justification, or adequate compensation.
The this case, the court held that a divorce initiated and obtained by a husband under Islamic religious and secular Pakistani law would not be recognized and afforded comity in Maryland. The petitioner argued that because he performed “talaq,” (which under Islamic law, allows a husband to divorce his wife by stating “I divorce thee” three times) the Circuit Court for Montgomery County lacked jurisdiction “to litigate the division of the parties’ marital property.” The opinion states the "trial court found that the marr
Mrs. Amponsah filed for divorce from her husband Mr. Nyamaah. She asked that a property the couple held be partitioned and that she receive her portion of its value. Mr. Nyamaah asserted that the house belonged to his father, who then granted the land to him. He argued that Mrs. Amponsah had no interest in the house, relying on a precedent which held that “a wife by going to live in a matrimonial home, the sole property of the husband, did not acquire any interest therein. She only had a right to live in the matrimonial home as long as the marriage subsisted.” The court held that Mr.
In Anderson v. S.D. Retirement System, the plaintiff sought survivor spouse benefits from the South Dakota Retirement System after the death of her wife, a long term partner, who had been a member of the system. The wife retired in 2012, when same-sex marriage was not legally recognized in South Dakota. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, the couple legally married.
