Odd Laws - Iceland
Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • January 31, 2025

Odd Law - Iceland

In either 999 or 1,000 CE (the records conflict) the meeting of the makers of the Laws in Iceland met. These meetings, which had been going on for about 70 years already, occurred each year and were called “Althing,” Some scholars consider this the oldest Parliament.


At these meetings, the chiefs of the sundry family groups would sit outside (so we can assume it was in the Summer) in a circle. Sitting in front each of the group leaders, facing each other was a warrior of the chief and behind him, at least two counselors. This may well signify that for every battle to be fought, there were two voices, in addition to the chief himself, considering the wisdom of the fight.


During the meetings, the “Speaker of the Laws” (alternatively the “Knower of the Laws”) would recite each and every law the nation had. Each law was, one by one, considered by the assembly. Should they continue having this law? Could it be altered if it was not meeting its goal or were there unforeseen consequences which could be avoided by a modification. Should that particular law be removed from the society totally?


For those scholars among you, this might sound a lot like James Madison’s belief that every law, including the Constitution, should expire at the end of 19 years, to be revisited. Well, the Icelandic peoples did just that.


The Althing of 1, 000 (or, maybe 999) was of a different character though. The law makers were trying to decide if they should accept Christianity as their religion, divesting themselves of the older pagan religion, worshiping the Norse gods of Odin, Thor, Loki, Frigga and the rest. (You all know that Thursday is named after Thor and Friday is named afer Frigga, right?) 


There had been several violent bouts with Christians wanting the change and about half of the population were, by that time, Christian themselves, whether by spiritual conversion or conversion by the sword.


The leaders were much divided among themselves and, after much negotiation, agreed to let one man make the decision for the entire nation. This man, reasonably enough, was the Speaker of the Law, Thorgeir Thorkelsson (friends all just called him “Thor”).


He isolated himself for a long while and came back with his pronouncement:


Iceland would be Christian....with a couple of exceptions:


1. They would continue to eat horsemeat (outlawed by that particular branch of Christianity - Roman Catholicism in 732 CE - don’t know how the Eastern Orthodox thought of it);


2. They would continue to be able to “get rid of their unwanted children” (usually considered to be exposing babies who were not the desired gender for the time or were misshapen in any way); and

3. You could still have your pagan religious ceremonies in private; and, most importantly,


4. Don’t get caught doing any of the first 3.


This was eventually named the kristnitaka.


Share this article

By Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. June 4, 2025
I have, from time to time, an opportunity to review family law agreements when dealing with a probate estate proceeding or a Trust administration. These family law agreements can take the form of a Divorce Decree, Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, a Post-Nuptial Agreement, an Ante-Nuptial agreement (often called a "Pre-Nup"), mediation agreements and temporary orders which might include temporary alimony payments plus of course, the common charging liens filed by attorneys involved. I also get to review Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO's") from time to time. Many of these documents are drafted without the help of an attorney. Sometimes, they will have been drafted by a paralegal or another lay-person, sometimes by the parties themselves. When I make inquiry of the parties about the documents, I often find the people who drafted them believe that, if there were a Judge involved in the underlying matter, the Judge would "fix" the document if it were wrong. So, if a Pre-Nup calls for extra alimony in the case of one party's infidelity, and, if that is not something the law books would allow, they believe that the Judge would tell them so and strike it from the agreement. Similarly, if someone's settlement agreement provides for one party to pay the other alimony even in the event of the remarriage of the party receiving alimony, the paying spouse believes that the Judge will tell them that Florida law does not require such payments to continue. The judge might similarly strike a provision for "permanent alimony" if the legislature had prohibited judges from ordering permanent alimony. Even if a QDRO was ordered to divide up one party's 401(k), some people believe the Judge will create the QDRO. None of this is true. If you come before the Court with an agreement, you can actually change the law as it applies to your own case. So, if permanent alimony has been ended by the legislature, but you agree to it in your settlement agreement, the Judge is not going to advise you that you are going against what authority the Court would have if you had not settled and had gone to trial. The Judge may ask you if you really agree to these terms and, if so, enter the Order requiring more than the Judge could ever have ordered at a contested trial. The best you can hope for from a Judge is when the judge sees the document - if the Judge reads it- is for the Judge to tell you to consult an attorney. If a Judge ever does tell you something like, "you really should talk to an attorney," this is a big red flag and you should take the Judge's advice. The Judge cannot, may not give you any advice other than to recommend you speak with an attorney. The long and short of it is there are reasons why it can often end up being less expensive to consult an attorney than to do some work for yourself.
Florida Powers of Attorney MYTHS V. FACTS
By Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. April 1, 2025
Florida Powers of Attorney MYTHS V. FACTS