Owens V Owens - No divorce for Tini Owens

Rubik

DigForVictory wrote: »

I note with interest that Robin Stewart Tolson QC does not appear to have a wikipedia page on which I see what his marital status is. Or has been.

Doubtless he is correctly enjoying his right to a private life, whilst the media shreds that of those in his court.

He is a widower, his wife of 23 years died in a skiing accident some years ago. Not that is at all relevant to how he does his job.

Her death was covered by some of the national newspapers at the time - one might say that was an intrusion on his private life and grief.

NBLondon

<Gets big stirring stick> The easiest solution where A believes the marriage has broken down but B disagrees is to allow A to divorce at 2 years separation with no ongoing claim on B's assets - just a fair division of genuine joint assets at that point - no maintenance payments. If you (and only you) want to break the contract, you accept the financial penalty. (I gather this exists in some US states).

No one is forcing Mrs O to remain in a relationship; no-one is forcing her to live in a neighbouring house that they still own - the law merely expects her to fulfil the contract as made back in 1978. So wait another 18 months or buy yourself out.

What's that? All her finances are tied up in the business they "built up together"? Which is one of her other claims for unreasonable behaviour - he spent too much time working on the farm and not enough with her. Which might or might not be a factor in why she had the affair. Which of course could have been grounds for him to instigate a divorce...

In short - I reckon the money is a bigger issue here than the state of the relationship.

macman

Katapolt wrote: »

Whilst i understand the law, its a very sad time for humanity.
No one should be forced into anything they dont want. His rejection to accept the divorce shouldnt be her issue - just because he cannot accept its over, he needs counselling, and she needs freedom.

But she already has her freedom. They have lived apart for 3 and a half years, she has no financial dependency (or possibly they have already agreed a financial split upon separation), their children are adults.
The only restriction is that she cannot remarry, and I'm not aware that she wishes to do that.
What about the husband's right not to be forced into a divorce that he doesn't want?

Tabbytabitha

unholyangel wrote: »

Thankfully we're 1 year with consent and 2 years without in scotland.

I'm all for marriage being portrayed as a serious commitment etc but also think that there is little point in tying two parties together when there is no hope of reconciliation and it also makes it harder for those in abusive relationships to leave when their partner can refuse to consent and stop them moving on with their lives for more than 5 years.

If you're in an abusive relationship, you can divorce on the grounds of unreasonsable behaviour without needing consent from the abuser.

Rubik

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

If you're in an abusive relationship, you can divorce on the grounds of unreasonsable behaviour without needing consent from the abuser.

This is true, but the burden of proof is far, far, higher in Scotland. If a defender in a divorce (respondent) does not agree to the facts set out, they simply tick a box saying they wish to defend. There will then be Proof hearings (and there may be several), all of which are open to public. Witnesses will be required, and further evidence such as police and medical reports may be required. Very few divorces in Scotland are "fault" based. IN addition, the finances and child arrangements need to be resolved before submitting a divorce Writ (although it is possible include a request for the Court to deal with those issues as part of the divorce Writ).

margaretclare

A solicitor who acted for my DH at the time of his divorce in 2000 stated that 'when one party moves out and applies for divorce, that's usually taken to mean that the marriage is over. ' That sounded reasonable. When a relationship is dead it needs decent burial.


His ex had initially wanted judicial separation, not divorce, with the idea that then he'd be obliged to support her for life. She was talked out of that idea.



I wouldn't want to live with a man like the one in this case. Obviously he's not short of a bob or two and how much he's been wasting propping up this dead marriage. I just hope he does survive long enough and that she does get her divorce, only 18 months or so to wait.

Tabbytabitha

margaretclare wrote: »

A solicitor who acted for my DH at the time of his divorce in 2000 stated that 'when one party moves out and applies for divorce, that's usually taken to mean that the marriage is over. ' That sounded reasonable. When a relationship is dead it needs decent burial.


His ex had initially wanted judicial separation, not divorce, with the idea that then he'd be obliged to support her for life. She was talked out of that idea.



I wouldn't want to live with a man like the one in this case. Obviously he's not short of a bob or two and how much he's been wasting propping up this dead marriage. I just hope he does survive long enough and that she does get her divorce, only 18 months or so to wait.

It's likely to be over for the one who's chosen to leave but not necessarily for the person who's been left.

macman

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

If you're in an abusive relationship, you can divorce on the grounds of unreasonsable behaviour without needing consent from the abuser.

Of course. But in the case of Owen vs Owen, there were no allegations of abusive behaviour, and the court (indeed, no less than 3 courts) found that unreasonable behaviour had not been proven.

macman

margaretclare wrote: »

A solicitor who acted for my DH at the time of his divorce in 2000 stated that 'when one party moves out and applies for divorce, that's usually taken to mean that the marriage is over. ' That sounded reasonable. When a relationship is dead it needs decent burial.


His ex had initially wanted judicial separation, not divorce, with the idea that then he'd be obliged to support her for life. She was talked out of that idea.



I wouldn't want to live with a man like the one in this case. Obviously he's not short of a bob or two and how much he's been wasting propping up this dead marriage. I just hope he does survive long enough and that she does get her divorce, only 18 months or so to wait.

But she hasn't been living with him for 3 and a half years (though she does, bizzarely, appear to live next door to him). Since she has failed in court 3 times to win her divorce, it will be her who has to pay the substantial legal bills for taking this to the Supreme Court, not him.
If he does not survive for another 18m, then she will have got her wish without any further expenditure, since she won't then need a divorce.

bap98189

macman wrote: »

What about the husband's right not to be forced into a divorce that he doesn't want?

What about it? Should one person have the right to force another to remain their spouse against their will?

This seems to be where the law stands at the moment, but hopefully someone in government will change this.