Named on divorce papers

Strapped

hazzie123 wrote: »

OMG,thats not good news.I`m gunna go to the CAB and ask them what usually happens in these cases.

Like I said he told me he was seperated and I really dont see that it`s my fault and I should be dragged into this.

Thank you for your replies,all advice welcome.

Therefore, you knew he was not divorced. And did commit adultery.

Sorry, not trying to be harsh - HE is at fault here - just trying to forewarn you that, technically, you did commit adultery so she has every right to name you.

Penny_Watcher

Strapped wrote: »

Therefore, you knew he was not divorced. And did commit adultery.

I think you may be wrong there. In a divorce for adultery there is the Petitioner (in this case the wife) the Respondent who has committed adultery (had sex with someone outside the marriage - in this case the husband) and the Co-Respondent (the person with whom the respondent has had sex - in this case the OP).

So technically it is the husband who commits the adultery not the co-respondent.

celyn90

That's true, she does have the right to name the OP, but the thing is that it is very rarely done these days. Her solicitor will probably tell her not to. Technically she hasn't committed adultery as she is unmarried - he has, but she can be named as the other party (co-respondent).

The only reasons I can think of is to try and screw costs from the co-respondent (again rare but some people try anything!) or if she thinks that the husband will not play ball and sign the papers. If she has a confession from you in writing then she has the evidence to proceed if he denies the facts in her petition, if she doesn't have a formal confession then it is virtually impossible to prove. She may also just be unleasing her anger on you by threatening you.

I agree with paddy's mum in the course of action. I doubt very much she will actually go ahead and name you and if she does you don't have to acknowledge her allegations at all or admit anything. I don't think you have much to worry about - you've not recived anything other than a threat from an angry woman.

margaretclare

Paddy's Mum is correct. In our case DH's ex had already entered her petition on the grounds of his 'unreasonable behaviour' (mostly lies) but she and solicitor-from-hell constantly seemed to come up with new ideas about how they could get more out of him - he'd arrived on my doorstep with literally nothing, like a refugee, a rusty old car, a few bags of clothes and his computer. He was also not in good health and was 62 with numerous redundancies behind him. So, he didn't have a lot she could go for. He'd left her with the fully-furnished matrimonial home and at that point, had no prospect of employment (although he did get a job, surprisingly, and worked in a call-centre for the next 4 years).

At one stage they came up with a claim that he 'must' have a lot of undisclosed assets because he'd been 'seen' driving a red Jaguar past her door to harass her. 170 miles away, a busy dual-carriageway road with non-stop traffic, and her neighbours had 'seen' him? The inference was, if he had an up-market Jaguar and not a rusty old white Ford, there was more that she could claim - offshore accounts maybe? I jumped in at that point and offered, as his landlady, to testify that there was no red Jaguar and he hadn't been back to Nottingham since he left. Next thing was this 'adultery' accusation. I refused to have anything to do with it. There was even a suggestion by them that the divorce would go through quicker if only I would admit to the allegations, but we didn't fall for that one. The accusations and new ideas got wilder as time went on, and when he was summoned to Judge's chambers in Nottingham over a few piddling Halifax shares which he'd had to cash to pay his solicitor (it went on so long she needed an interim payment) we found a local solicitor to act as agent for his solicitor in Southend. They weren't expecting (a) that he would show up and (b) that he would have representation if he did. The whole thing bounced back on them, her costs weren't awarded against him (which she'd hoped for) and he got the 'clean break' he wanted.

Margaret

hazzie123

paddy's_mum wrote: »

Since he has been sleeping around, I'd be more concerned with getting my sexual health checked out than worrying about what a disinterested divorce court judge may think about me. Judges have seen it all before!

Just got my sexual health check results back this morning and I`m very pleased to say they are all NEGATIVE!

Penny_Watcher

Also it's a good idea not to sign anything and generally not co-operate. As a named co-respondent in a divorce case you can end up having costs awarded equally against you and the respondent. So you end up paying for his divorce!

It's much easier for her solicitors if you're not involved. It's an added complication they don't need. She can divorce him for adultery without naming anyone in particular.

*Louise*

What an absolute creep!!!

Don't sign anything, deny all knowledge and wash your hands of the lot of them.

hazzie123

*Louise* wrote: »

What an absolute creep!!!

Don't sign anything, deny all knowledge and wash your hands of the lot of them.

That is exactly what I`m going to do.

Chloepad1

Ugh..definitely wash your hands of this man and the entire sordid business. Let them argue it out amongst themselves but definitely don't let this foul cheating scum anywhere near you in future.