Also, I found the following in wikipedia:
In some jurisdictions divorce does not require a party to claim fault of their partner that leads to the breakdown of marriage. But even in jurisdictions which have adopted the "no fault" principle in divorce proceedings, a court may still take into account the behaviour of the parties when dividing property, debts, evaluating custody, and support.
In addition to the highlighted part, note that "does not require a party to claim fault" is not the same as "a party is not allowed to claim fault". It appears to me that a party can claim fault if he/she wants to. Remember that we are talking about a possible divorce battle
, not a friendly divorce. In a friendly divorce, none of this should be an issue.
on the other hand:
Condonance may be made when an accuser has previously forgiven or condoned (in some way or at some level supported) the act about which they are complaining. In some legal jurisdictions, and for certain behaviors, it may prevent the accuser from prevailing.
For example, if a creditor states that they forgive a certain debt, they might be blocked (or estopped) from attempting to collect that debt later. They would not be blocked from collecting any other debts, however. Condonation may also be a defense in cases of dismissal from employment for cause where the employer by word or conduct forgives or impliedly forgives behavior which would otherwise justify dismissal without notice.
However, this is listed under defenses for fault divorce and may not apply to settlements for no-fault divorce.
So I dunno. Seems to me there might still be danger.