It’s said that, when using a car for business, it’s best to drive something which reflects the success of your enterprise. I’m not sure that a nearly thirty-year-old Vanagon, found in San Diego by some old Columbus, Ohio friends, says a lot about this proprietor, but it’s still a brilliant concept. I alluded to the expense of divorce in a post last week–how’s this as a four-wheeled solution? These vans were packaging miracles, and with a table mounted in the middle of the floor and a proper array of paperwork, it could house a very efficient, expedient and mobile means of dissolving a marriage.
Granted, with a Wasserboxer, it might take a while for these people to get to your corner of SoCal, but with what looks to be a fresh catalytic converter, there’s one less reason to pull this VW over. I can picture a perfect tagline for this service: “Had a bad fight? Can’t wait for a divorce? WE’LL come to you!” Imagine an entire fleet of obscure ’80s people movers, with cheap lawyers in Vanagons, Stanza wagons, and Toyota vans, ready to be dispatched at a moment’s notice to end their clients’ trouble in paradise.
Maybe what they mean is try buying this car for your wife and see how fast she wants a divorce.
It would be more amusing if this sign was on the back of a 67-68 Imperial Crown Coupe with the Mobile Director option.
That sign is the only thing “fast” about that vehicle!
If a person can get married sitting in a vehicle at a drive thru window, why not divorced while in a vehicle?
However, I think a vehicle such as this would be better utilized by a mid-wife.
Obviously “fast” means different things to different people….
I saw that van a few years ago when I was in San Diego. Was parked at a mall. Today the sun is shining here on Vancouver island just like it does in San Diego, well maybe not quite 🙂
Alistair
Only in Southern California right? Wonder if California is an At Fault State? When a family member got divorced in New York back in the 1970s they had to make up a reason why they were divorcing. “We are not a good fit” was not a good enough answer.
I am on Curbside Classic on my phone and the layout sure has changed a lot. Wonder how it will look on my laptop.
Calif is a “No Fault” state. Gov. Reagan (himself divorced) signed that law in 1969. A perverse result of this is, a relative of mine owed alimony despite her husband being the adulterer.
I don’t think any state is an “At Fault” state anymore, at least in terms of “At Fault” being the only way to get divorced. But until the 1960s, every state was strictly At-Fault. The idea was that the government had an interest in keeping marriages together, and wouldn’t let you out of a marriage unless your spouse had committed some wrong that justified letting you out. “I just don’t want to be married to this person anymore” wasn’t a good enough reason. This seems very strange to those of us who have grown up in more recent decades, but it’s the way things were. Divorce was less common back then not only due to the social stigma, but also because it was legally more difficult to get divorced than it is today.
California was one of the first states, possibly the very first, to introduce No-Fault divorce. IIRC, Massachusetts (where I live) introduced No-Fault in 1976. I think the last state to introduce No-Fault was one of the Dakotas, back in the mid ’80s.
About 20 years ago, while I was going to law school, I worked an internship at a Massachusetts Probate & Family Court. The At-Fault provisions still existed in Mass. state law, and you could still file for a divorce on those grounds. I would say that 90% of divorces were No-Fault, though. Some people would file At-Fault, then realize that they had to prove in court that their spouse committed whatever it was they were alleging, and decide that it was much simpler to go No-Fault and be done with it. The only people who I remember carrying through with At-Fault were women who had substantiated proof that their husband had physicially abused them (e.g., the husband had been convicted of spousal abuse), which was one of the At-Fault grounds. I think they may have received favorable treatment in the divorce if the other party was at fault, or they just wanted what their husband had done to be on the record. There were several other At-Fault grounds on the books (like adultery) but I rarely if ever saw any of the others used.
I have this vague memory from law school that, up until the 1960s, New York had very restrictive divorce laws, with only a few grounds for divorce. Couples who had mutually agreed to get divorced would sometimes have one of the spouses “stage” adultery as a pretense to enable the other spouse to file for divorce (in some cases not even carrying through with the adultery, but allowing themselves to be caught seemingly in the act). Other couples would seek divorces in foreign countries whose laws allowed for quickie divorces, such as Haiti and the Dominican Republic. This resulted in the New York courts having unusually well-developed case law on the matter of divorces obtained in other countries.
Thank you for all that information. Despite what you may hear New York is still a somewhat conservative state even with the repeal of those silly marriage laws and other silly laws.
Despite its liberal reputation, New York was the last state to adopt no-fault divorce (and not until 2010!). My understanding is that before then, the equivalent to no-fault was divorcing on the grounds of separation, so married couples had to legally separate for at least a year before the state would allow them to divorce.
Sort of an odd topic for my first comment, but just wanted to let you know, I’ve been following the blog religiously for a year or so and love it! Keep up the great work! The collective knowledge of the bloggers and commenters here is just amazing.
I guess every law school class has a bottom 50%. This picture reminds me of the old saying that nobody wants a cheap lawyer.
This also reminds me of how happy I have been since I started refusing divorce cases about 15 years ago. Even though the divorce is no longer contested, everything else is.
Probably no fun for legal secretaries either!
It’s a brilliant concept. She’s working from home, so no paying for office space, a comfortable interior with all her paperwork handy plus a scanner/fax/copier..and $1.50 per mile discretely added to the divorce fee!
I rather think this is just an ad, like on the back of city buses. The Vanagon has a big back end, and this sign would be very prominent in traffic. I don’t know why anyone assumes that the lawyer works out of it.
…it’s just a fun idea:
“Where’s a divorce lawyer when you need one?”
*screeeeeech*
“RIGHT HERE!”
But isn’t calling anything that comes to you in a VW bus “fast” false advertising?