Innocent but named as third party in divorce

Rikki

The wife has only said she is filing for divorce and is sighting you as the third party. It's up to her husband to convince her especially as nothing is going on. If she does file for divorce on the grounds of adultery (with you) he has to sign he agrees with this other wise she has to divorce him for unreconcilable differences.
I wouldn't attempt to contact her directly. If you protest too loud it all adds to suspicion.(Even where there is none.)
I would talk to your boss and explain you do not wish to be involved in his marriage problems or divorce.
If there is a solicitor letter to your boss then this is the time to address a letter to the solicitor stating your are not involved in a relationship with her husband.

You are not liable for any cost if you are named in the divorce as the co-respondent.


Remember this could just be one big argument between your boss and his wife and it could all blow over and you could look pretty stupid then.

Errata

t_a wrote: »

Hi jazzy
thanks for your message.
I read online that if they actually name the third party, that third party is responsible for the divorce costs, so that's why I'm concerned.
Terri

That maybe so, but there has to be proof that is acceptable to the judge. Otherwise everyone would name the Prince of Wales as the co-respondent.

t_a_2

Hi
Sorry, just to clarify, he wasn't my boss, solely a colleague and I left there in May, so it's not like I have to see him in the office.
I am coming around to everyone's thoughts to stay completely out of it. I just thought a solicitors' letter may land on my doorstep and then I have to pay a solicitor to defend it, but clearly he's going to deny it, so I guess I'm out of it completely.
Thanks for your help everyone
Terri

jazzyjustlaw

Rikki wrote: »

The wife has only said she is filing for divorce and is sighting you as the third party. It's up to her husband to convince her especially as nothing is going on. If she does file for divorce on the grounds of adultery (with you) he has to sign he agrees with this other wise she has to divorce him for unreconcilable differences.
I wouldn't attempt to contact her directly. If you protest too loud it all adds to suspicion.(Even where there is none.)
I would talk to your boss and explain you do not wish to be involved in his marriage problems or divorce.
If there is a solicitor letter to your boss then this is the time to address a letter to the solicitor stating your are not involved in a relationship with her husband.

You are not liable for any cost if you are named in the divorce as the co-respondent.


Remember this could just be one big argument between your boss and his wife and it could all blow over and you could look pretty stupid then.

There is no such thing as unreconcilable differences. There is only one way to obtain a divorce and that is to show that the marriage has irretrievably broken down by way of one of the following, Adultery (and the divorcing party finds it intolerable to live with the Respondent), Unreasonable Behaviour (and the divorcing party cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent), Separation after two years with consent, Desertion after two years and five years separation with consent.

Soubrette

It does seem as if a co-respondent may be liable for some costs in a divorce - it just rarely happens.

There is often little reason for a co-respondent to cooperate, particularly as they may be ordered to pay a portion of the court costs if a divorce is granted.

From http://www.sfla.co.uk/adulteryeffects.htm

Also it seems from that page that if not disputed then the adultery claim will just go through - it's only if it's disputed that proof by the petitioner will be required.

Good luck OP, I personally would not allow someone to name me in divorce proceedings if I were innocent.

jazzyjustlaw

Soubrette wrote: »

It does seem as if a co-respondent may be liable for some costs in a divorce - it just rarely happens.



From http://www.sfla.co.uk/adulteryeffects.htm

Also it seems from that page that if not disputed then the adultery claim will just go through - it's only if it's disputed that proof by the petitioner will be required.

Good luck OP, I personally would not allow someone to name me in divorce proceedings if I were innocent.

Just to point out the SFLA is now Resolution so look at www.resolution.org.uk instead.

jazzyjustlaw

Errata wrote: »

That maybe so, but there has to be proof that is acceptable to the judge. Otherwise everyone would name the Prince of Wales as the co-respondent.

Not sure who you are responding to?

lucylucky

Nothing has happened that has involved you, so do nothing.

Should something happen then come back looking for advice, until then go out and enjoy your Sunday.

lucylucky

jazzyjustlaw wrote: »

There is no such thing as unreconcilable differences. There is only one way to obtain a divorce and that is to show that the marriage has irretrievably broken down by way of one of the following, Adultery (and the divorcing party finds it intolerable to live with the Respondent), Unreasonable Behaviour (and the divorcing party cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent), Separation after two years with consent, Desertion after two years and five years separation with consent.

In Scotland you only need to separate for 1 year and both agree or 2 years with no consent.
Also desertion is no longer a reason for divorce.

Not that any of this matters to the OP as she has not been legally involved in any proceedings so personally I cannot see any reason for her to become involved with a former colleague and his personal issues.

paddy's_mum

Can I just repeat - if the divorce action is on the grounds of adultery, then the paperwork is prepared in triplicate. One set goes to the petitioner (the wife) one set goes to the respondent (the husband) and the final set goes to the co-respondent (the other woman). It is at this point, as I already pointed out, that Terri can refuse to sign that the paragraph that asks if she admits to being the other woman.

If she refuses, the court WILL NOT just put it through on the nod of the husband, as it were. No divorce court judge in the land is just going to accept that Terri is indeed the other woman without her being offered a full chance to defend herself and refute the accusation.

As I've already said, stop fretting over it and drop contact with the man other than to send a formal denial to the wife, if her details are forthcoming. This is all if-but-or-maybe and not worth getting your knickers in a twist for!