adultery scenario

clearingout

divorce documents aren't made public. So who did what, or who was named as adulterous doesn't matter, does it?

rachelhen

It is something that happened to someone else I was surprised that someone can be named in a legal document without consultation/notification.

The point being that anyone could name anyone.

"divorce documents aren't made public. So who did what, or who was named as adulterous doesn't matter, does it?" clearingout

well I actually think it does matter, as it is accusing someone of something which is frowned on in our society and if it matters when its someone famous then it is equally unfair on an ordinary member of the public.
Things have a habit of coming out. Imagine the ex wife with documents in her house naming a particular person as co respondent. I can understand my friend's distress. Despite the fact that she did have a relationship with the person she was single and the man involved had had multiple relationships which his then wifehad turned a blind eye to over the years. They could have agreed unreasonable behaviour and the man could have taken responsibility for the break up.

clearingout

Then she committed adultery in which case, she really can't complain, can she? doesn't matter that she was single, or that the wife turned a blind eye (which I doubt), she committed adultery. However, if she was named as a co-respondent, she should have had the paperwork.

rachelhen

The main point of my post is that she was never notified which makes me suspect that something was not legal about it.

There are other issues, the multiple relationships that the man in question had, the fact that the marriage was in break up mode anyway which makes it unfair to 'blame' the other person which is the implication from naming her.

FunnySaving

Well, if she did have a relationship with the person, then the statements are true - were there a question over the veracity of the claims then I would have some sympathy, but if she did what she was accused of then I can't see there being much recourse.

rachelhen

The main point is that anyone could be named as she was never informed. I think it can't be legal.

adamantine

the divorce wouldnt have gone through without her admission. either someone intercepted the papers being served on her nd forged her signature (extreamly unlikely) otr she is lying. i know where my money lies on this one.

if se is adamant she didnt see the papers or sign anything then she needs to see a solicitor and get advice on where she stands about a fraud investigation and having the forger charged.

Nicki

rachelhen wrote: »

The main point of my post is that she was never notified which makes me suspect that something was not legal about it.

There are other issues, the multiple relationships that the man in question had, the fact that the marriage was in break up mode anyway which makes it unfair to 'blame' the other person which is the implication from naming her.

So when all the looters were stealing from shops this summer, it was less morally wrong to join in then?

The fact that a man has slept with other women during the course of his marriage, does not surely make it more or less culpable for a woman to also sleep with him knowing he was married? If she didn't want to run the risk of being named as a corespondent, she should have waited until the divorce was underway before she jumped into bed with him. If no papers had been drawn up when the relationship started, she couldn't have known that it was in break up mode rather than just going through a rough patch as most marriages do.

I have little sympathy for her being named, and she would have no grounds to contest it at the time. As others have said, she should have been served with the papers at the time of the divorce and filed an acknowlegement with the court. Are you sure she didn't do this, and is now pretending otherwise to you out of embarrassment. She could be a liar as well as an adulteress, you know!

princessdreamer

TBH I think she should just move on with her life, I fail to see any benefit in taking it further as it will become more public.

rachelhen

Caaalm down caaalm down Nikki ....my friend isn't a liar. Having delved further she was not named in court. to me this makes a difference.
She was named in correspondence. The man in question is an idiot as he had no need to name the person he was seeing at that time in my opinion.
The court document states the co respndent as an 'unnamed woman'.
The person was single at the time and was lead to believe that the relationship he had with his wife was in its dying embers. What annoys my friend is that the man's wife had relationships including ones of an adulterous nature when they were together and so in my opinion is a hypocrite. I think the man is a weak idiot because if he wanted an amicable divorce he could have agreed to unreasonable behaviour instead of scapegoating a 3rd party. These things do matter to people. Imagine a relationship between 2 married people both having affairs then one appears to be having a more serious relationship I am afraid I call it the kettle calling the pot ....