|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 7:30:25 AM
THE IMAGE ABOVE IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT The context would be a mutually agreed upon divorce with no children and both parties pretty much in agreement over how things should be split. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 7:51:56 AM
Originally Posted By GaryM:
I keep hearing it is better to file for divorce than allowing the spouse to be the one to do so. Why? What are the advantages of being the petitioner instead of the respondent? The context would be a mutually agreed upon divorce with no children and both parties pretty much in agreement over how things should be split. Does she have a lawyer too? I got mine to agree to use one lawyer, I signed for the bill. After we settled, and signed, she got pissed about something stupid. When she called the lawyer to get him to "make" me do something, he told her to fuck off since he didn't represent her. She didn't have the money to hire one at that point. It has saved me lots of grief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 7:56:27 AM
Originally Posted By postpostban:
Originally Posted By GaryM:
I keep hearing it is better to file for divorce than allowing the spouse to be the one to do so. Why? What are the advantages of being the petitioner instead of the respondent? The context would be a mutually agreed upon divorce with no children and both parties pretty much in agreement over how things should be split. Does she have a lawyer too? I got mine to agree to use one lawyer, I signed for the bill. After we settled, and signed, she got pissed about something stupid. When she called the lawyer to get him to "make" me do something, he told her to fuck off since he didn't represent her. She didn't have the money to hire one at that point. It has saved me lots of grief. [golfclap] Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 8:00:12 AM
Originally Posted By GaryM:
I keep hearing it is better to file for divorce than allowing the spouse to be the one to do so. Why? What are the advantages of being the petitioner instead of the respondent? The context would be a mutually agreed upon divorce with no children and both parties pretty much in agreement over how things should be split. If that is totally true then you don't even really need a lawyer. However, things can go to hell in a handbasket quickly and it turns into a huge ugly mess. My sister is a family law attorney and I hear about all kinds of nasty cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 8:03:01 AM
Originally Posted By postpostban:
Originally Posted By GaryM:
I keep hearing it is better to file for divorce than allowing the spouse to be the one to do so. Why? What are the advantages of being the petitioner instead of the respondent? The context would be a mutually agreed upon divorce with no children and both parties pretty much in agreement over how things should be split. Does she have a lawyer too? I got mine to agree to use one lawyer, I signed for the bill. After we settled, and signed, she got pissed about something stupid. When she called the lawyer to get him to "make" me do something, he told her to fuck off since he didn't represent her. She didn't have the money to hire one at that point. It has saved me lots of grief. I did it with one lawyer. Arguing over stuff is just stupid; you can always get more stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 8:07:18 AM
[Last Edit: 6/21/2012 8:53:05 AM by 57Strat]
It can be done something like this but I'm sure it will vary somewhat from state to state. If you and your wife are in agreement on everything, there is no reason to involve lawyers anymore than absolutely necessary. In your case I would get with your wife and make notes of everything that you agree on and take those notes to your lawyer and have him file for divorce and draft the divorce decree covering everything that you and your wife agree upon. Make sure your lawyer understands that you don't want a fight and that you and your wife are working out the agreement on your own and you don't need the lawyers to go back and forth on working out every detail. Your wife will need her own lawyer to review the final document as a formality since technically your attorney can't represent your wife and you both, and if she signed it without representation it could easily be challenged later.
Once the document suits both you and your wife, you can both sign the document. I am not sure about your state laws or processes, but all that will likely be required at that point is you both go in front of a judge with your lawyers and the judge will ask you if you both agree to the document that you signed. You'll both say "yes" and the judge will grant you a divorce. Note: I'm not a lawyer but I have been through two divorces. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 8:54:14 AM
In your situation, it will not make a difference who files first. And in most other situations, it is only a strategic advantage at best. Be thankful you are not having to go through this with child custody issues.
These things tend to go to hell quickly over minor issues. My ex-wife wanted to argue about who would get the household cleaning products and clothes pins while we were both paying attorneys $250 an hour during a conference call. Good luck brother and don't sweat the small stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 9:00:53 AM
Originally Posted By 57Strat:
It can be done something like this but I'm sure it will vary somewhat from state to state. If you and your wife are in agreement on everything, there is no reason to involve lawyers anymore than absolutely necessary. In your case I would get with your wife and make notes of everything that you agree on and take those notes to your lawyer and have him file for divorce and draft the divorce decree covering everything that you and your wife agree upon. Make sure your lawyer understands that you don't want a fight and that you and your wife are working out the agreement on your own and you don't need the lawyers to go back and forth on working out every detail. Your wife will need her own lawyer to review the final document as a formality since technically your attorney can't represent your wife and you both, and if she signed it without representation it could easily be challenged later. Once the document suits both you and your wife, you can both sign the document. I am not sure about your state laws or processes, but all that will likely be required at that point is you both go in front of a judge with your lawyers and the judge will ask you if you both agree to the document that you signed. You'll both say "yes" and the judge will grant you a divorce. Note: I'm not a lawyer but I have been through two divorces. I am a lawyer and while you are generally right, some states allow for a joint representation by one lawyer of both spouses in an uncontested divorce. Tennessee does I believe. It usually requires waivers to be signed, and nothing you say to the attorney is confidential; in fact, the lawyer probably has to tell any material information to the other spouse. Even in states where it is allowed, a lot of lawyers won't do joint representations of divorces. While it is a lot cheaper, there are also that many more things that could go wrong and create a malpractice or ethics problem for the lawyer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 9:15:18 AM
Originally Posted By CatfishHunter:
In your situation, it will not make a difference who files first. And in most other situations, it is only a strategic advantage at best. Be thankful you are not having to go through this with child custody issues. These things tend to go to hell quickly over minor issues. My ex-wife wanted to argue about who would get the household cleaning products and clothes pins while we were both paying attorneys $250 an hour during a conference call. Good luck brother and don't sweat the small stuff. I was told that a good attorney can figure out what judge is likely to be assigned the case and time their filing based on that (so a Judge that ALWAYS awards custody and support to the wife won't be the one that gets the case). AFARR |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 9:37:12 AM
According to my wife who has a dozen divorces going at a time: There is NO advantage to who files first. She tries to steer her divorce clients towards uncontested agreements to save money and time for everyone. In many cases the other spouse sees this as a weakness to exploit and hires an attorney to "hurry up and file". 9 times out of 10 the judge at the preliminary hearing admonishes them to work it out and come back to court with an agreement in place.
The great victory of rushing to file is that you get to spend thousands of dollars instead of hundreds. My wife has had $800 uncontested divorces go $4000-6000 just because one spouse thinks they can screw the other by filing and serving. stupid. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 9:45:44 AM
Originally Posted By GaryM: I keep hearing it is better to file for divorce than allowing the spouse to be the one to do so. Why? What are the advantages of being the petitioner instead of the respondent? The context would be a mutually agreed upon divorce with no children and both parties pretty much in agreement over how things should be split. Doesn't really make a difference here. Actually, it's more expensive to be the Plaintiff since you have to pay the $210 filing fee and (usually) also the $95 fee for the "Request for Judicial Intervention," which gets a judge assigned to the case and puts it on the Court's calendar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 9:54:57 AM
The attorneys that also happen to be personal friends in my AO claim it's better to file first. I recall that it is because with the petition, certain temporary orders can be issued by the judge, such as determining possession of the house, cars, custody orders, etc., until a hearing can be held.
I would imagine that varies from one jurisdiction to another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 9:58:00 AM
Lady files first, she will also file a standard restraining order to get you out of the house. Surprise. Now you get to pay the house payment and custodial support for the kids until you get the order overturned.
File first and cut that off at the knees and stay in the house. It's self preservation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:03:41 AM
Originally Posted By realengr: Lady files first, she will also file a standard restraining order to get you out of the house. Surprise. Now you get to pay the house payment and custodial support for the kids until you get the order overturned. File first and cut that off at the knees and stay in the house. It's self preservation. Constitutionally there needs to be a basis for this. People don't just get restraining orders because they want them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:05:33 AM
Originally Posted By Averagebear:
Originally Posted By postpostban:
Originally Posted By GaryM:
I keep hearing it is better to file for divorce than allowing the spouse to be the one to do so. Why? What are the advantages of being the petitioner instead of the respondent? The context would be a mutually agreed upon divorce with no children and both parties pretty much in agreement over how things should be split. Does she have a lawyer too? I got mine to agree to use one lawyer, I signed for the bill. After we settled, and signed, she got pissed about something stupid. When she called the lawyer to get him to "make" me do something, he told her to fuck off since he didn't represent her. She didn't have the money to hire one at that point. It has saved me lots of grief. I did it with one lawyer. Arguing over stuff is just stupid; you can always get more stuff. Depends what the stuff is. If it has been in the family a long time and it means something to you then you would not want to let it go so easily. Say an old firearm that your father used in WWII. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:13:55 AM
I did mine Pro Se (myself) in CT back in 2000 and it was limited contested. No kids but the bat want my property, loot and pension. No kids thank God. I learned alot about the judicial system real fucking quick. The court clerks helped me out with the some of the formailities even though they probably shouldn't have. I think the clerks hated my ex just as much as I did. The bitch got two things out of it: jack and shit. I nearly got a stomach ulcer. Feeling froggy? Try Pro Se.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:24:22 AM
Originally Posted By Slimbone:
I did mine Pro Se (myself) in CT back in 2000 and it was limited contested. No kids but the bat want my property, loot and pension. No kids thank God. I learned alot about the judicial system real fucking quick. The court clerks helped me out with the some of the formailities even though they probably shouldn't have. I think the clerks hated my ex just as much as I did. The bitch got two things out of it: jack and shit. I nearly got a stomach ulcer. Feeling froggy? Try Pro Se. Horrible idea. Fully 1/3 of my wifes business is people who tried Pro Se and got laughed out of court. If your state has uncontested just hire an attorney to do the document prep. Keep in mind that you are only paying the attorney for the preparation of the document, not to call them 3 times a day for moral support. Glad it worked out for you but Pro Se is a good way to lose your ass. Court clerks are not lawyers. If they do anything beyond pointing to the rack of forms they are in ethical trouble. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:24:31 AM
You have a lot confused in the OP.
Some observations. 1. Being the first name on a petition is not an advantage. Generally, a husband lets the wife file. However, when the first name on the petition is that of the husband, it is a tip off to the court that there are some dire problems with the wife. 2. Most people don't file for divorce until the next hunk or hot honey is spotted. People are lazy. 3. It is a myth that almost being in agreement on finances is an agreement. Most divorcing couples have lived well beyond their means. In fact, poor finances are a leading cause of divorce. 4. The non existence of children in a marriage is a positive. However, it does not mean that a party escapes completing and swearing to 15 pages of court forms. 5. If you ever wondered why you have to fill out 15 pages of papers when all you have is a "simple divorce", ask a judge or experienced attorney. To your astonishment you will learn that people lie, cheat, steal and engage in extensive misconduct and concealment when getting divorced. 6. If you think that lawyers make mistakes in drafting divorce petitions, imagine how many mistakes are made by the cheap paralegal service that charges you only $200 or laypeople who don't want to pay anyone and do it themselves. One do-it-yourselfer forgot to deal with the retirement pension and had to deal with it in court 20 years later. And imagine the expression on the "divorcee's" face when she learned that the paralegal service had simply filed her petition,never served it, and did no further work and it was a decade later! The most recent humor was a friend's son calling on his cell phone on his way to court. He wanted to know if he had all the appropriate papers with him for his divorce. Of course, he didn't. It is a year later and still he hasn't been able to make the effort to file and serve all of the necessary papers. Bottom line - if you think that lawyers are crooked and expensive, do it yourself or go to a paralegal service and take your chances (and don't complain). ![]() |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:31:40 AM
Originally Posted By JMD: Originally Posted By Averagebear: Originally Posted By postpostban: Originally Posted By GaryM: I keep hearing it is better to file for divorce than allowing the spouse to be the one to do so. Why? What are the advantages of being the petitioner instead of the respondent? The context would be a mutually agreed upon divorce with no children and both parties pretty much in agreement over how things should be split. Does she have a lawyer too? I got mine to agree to use one lawyer, I signed for the bill. After we settled, and signed, she got pissed about something stupid. When she called the lawyer to get him to "make" me do something, he told her to fuck off since he didn't represent her. She didn't have the money to hire one at that point. It has saved me lots of grief. I did it with one lawyer. Arguing over stuff is just stupid; you can always get more stuff. Depends what the stuff is. If it has been in the family a long time and it means something to you then you would not want to let it go so easily. Say an old firearm that your father used in WWII. That would be separate property in every state, and thus not subject to division at divorce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:31:42 AM
[Last Edit: 6/21/2012 10:32:43 AM by seven-six-two]
Originally Posted By BushBoar: Constitutionally there needs to be a basis for this. People don't just get restraining orders because they want them. "People" don't. Women do. She simply goes to the judge and says: "He has a violent temperament, your honor. He also has a gun collection that is huge. He's in to tactical assualt weapons, has numerous handguns, shotguns, and trains for tactical situations using human shaped targets (USPSA). He even believes it's right to shoot police officers. I am about to file for divorce, which will make him really, really angry, and I fear he may do something violent against me, or the children." Judge errs on the side of caution and grants the TRO because even though he knows she's probably lying. His future career as an elected official will be toast if he denies and something bad does actually happen. You can all sort it out in court. Boom! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:35:29 AM
My ex wife and I filed pro se. No kids, no house, cars and debt in our own names. No fights over pets or furniture. Now that I think about it, our divorce was the only thing we didn't fight over.
My advice- If you know you're wife will play nice and you're both mature adults, you can save a lot of money doing it yourself. I'm not against lawyers at all. I hired one when I purchased a foreclosure and it was the best $380 I ever spent. Very professional and kicked serious ass when I needed him to. I'm considering putting him on retainer for future headaches. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:36:22 AM
Originally Posted By seven-six-two: Originally Posted By BushBoar: Constitutionally there needs to be a basis for this. People don't just get restraining orders because they want them. "People" don't. Women do. She simply goes to the judge and says: "He has a violent temperament, your honor. He also has a gun collection that is huge. He's in to tactical assualt weapons, has numerous handguns, shotguns, and trains for tactical situations using human shaped targets (USPSA). He even believes it's right to shoot police officers. I am about to file for divorce, which will make him really, really angry, and I fear he may do something violent against me, or the children." Judge errs on the side of caution and grants the TRO because even though he knows she's probably lying. His future career as an elected official will be toast if he denies and something bad does actually happen. You can all sort it out in court. Boom! I do this for a living. Yes, anyone can lie and get a restraining order. That goes for men too, and I've seen it. I didn't say people couldn't do that. I said that you don't get one just for wanting one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:39:27 AM
Originally Posted By seven-six-two:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Constitutionally there needs to be a basis for this. People don't just get restraining orders because they want them. "People" don't. Women do. She simply goes to the judge and says: "He has a violent temperament, your honor. He also has a gun collection that is huge. He's in to tactical assualt weapons, has numerous handguns, shotguns, and trains for tactical situations using human shaped targets (USPSA). He even believes it's right to shoot police officers. I am about to file for divorce, which will make him really, really angry, and I fear he may do something violent against me, or the children." Judge errs on the side of caution and grants the TRO because even though he knows she's probably lying. His future career as an elected official will be toast if he denies and something bad does actually happen. You can all sort it out in court. Boom! No, they don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:44:30 AM
There is only one rule regarding divorces.
The man loses. Always. Ask me how I know. ![]() |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:45:06 AM
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
There is only one rule regarding divorces. The man loses. Always. Ask me how I know. ![]() This is also wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 10:45:17 AM
Originally Posted By seven-six-two: Originally Posted By BushBoar: Constitutionally there needs to be a basis for this. People don't just get restraining orders because they want them. "People" don't. Women do. She simply goes to the judge and says: "He has a violent temperament, your honor. He also has a gun collection that is huge. He's in to tactical assualt weapons, has numerous handguns, shotguns, and trains for tactical situations using human shaped targets (USPSA). He even believes it's right to shoot police officers. I am about to file for divorce, which will make him really, really angry, and I fear he may do something violent against me, or the children." Judge errs on the side of caution and grants the TRO because even though he knows she's probably lying. His future career as an elected official will be toast if he denies and something bad does actually happen. You can all sort it out in court. Boom! I have a buddy doing 15 years and it started just like that, it ended when she found out where he was having the kids watched for daycare and rented a room within the TRO space outlined. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 12:30:49 PM
My friend and his wife used a mediator. He told her flat out when she wanted to get divorced, that every cent that went to a lawyer was less money for her. She agreed, and it wound up being a semi-amicable divorce and very little money was used. Now if your wife is a mental case this won't work, but if she's smart she would agree to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 6:56:24 PM
My Ex wanted a Divorce after 11 years. I said fine and we divided up our shit.
She got a Lawyer and filed the paperwork. Cost her around a $1000. Me, I knew half the Lawyer's in the area. Called one, said he handled it since we were not contesting anything and he owed he a favor. I get a call from Ex after Court asking why I wasn't there. I said my Lawyer handled it. She asked how much. Told her "Free". Plus I didn't miss work. Ex was pissed. Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 8:26:52 PM
Absolutely NONE-
Yer Fucked, ANY WAY YOU ROLL! Good luck dude! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 8:36:24 PM
I believe (through experience) that, 'whoever gets there first wins' at least they (or you if you go this route) have a better chance of coming out ahead. Divorce is never an easy thing but compounding the 'trauma' is the long lasting ramifications if it is not done right the first time (you generally can not go back for a 'redo'). Pay the money, get a mad dog lawyer and go for it while you have a chance. Just my .02 worth - hope everything works out well for you - good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 8:53:16 PM
I am almost done with mine, with no lawyer involved. We have 20 years + together. Sometimes, you just wind up on different paths.
After the stupid stuff; the anger, the vitriol, I really backed it off and took some time to let the wounds heal a bit, and for the dust to settle. Really started to think about her, the boys, and while yes, we were through, this was not a woman I hate. Not at all. So, I worked to make things as good as I could. When I finally went over to talk about filing, we were able to come to some easy agreements, with no fighting. I have stayed my course, we get along very well considering. I do my best to take care of her, and she is not trying to gouge me; in turn, I am happy to help her when she needs it. (She was the love of my life, and my partner. If you want to toss acid on that, proceed at your own risk.) No lawyer, we went over the papers, agreed on things, and filed. The only reason my D is not done is my inabilty to cross my 'I's' and to dot my T's. Stupid stuff that kicks it back to you. Then, it has taken more than 90 days, so you need to resubmit the financial paperwork. And now, I think it will be down to 1 day in court, so I am hopeful. I wish you and anyone who is headed to the D a lot of luck. My advice is, to COOL YOUR JETS. Sort and settle things, square up your house as it were, and really think of what and how it will shake out. Do what you can to make the ride a little less bumpy. With this said, I know some folks have nuked the scene, and they are in for a world of concentrated fuck. I wish them luck also. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 9:40:57 PM
Originally Posted By PinePig: Originally Posted By seven-six-two: Originally Posted By BushBoar: Constitutionally there needs to be a basis for this. People don't just get restraining orders because they want them. "People" don't. Women do. She simply goes to the judge and says: "He has a violent temperament, your honor. He also has a gun collection that is huge. He's in to tactical assualt weapons, has numerous handguns, shotguns, and trains for tactical situations using human shaped targets (USPSA). He even believes it's right to shoot police officers. I am about to file for divorce, which will make him really, really angry, and I fear he may do something violent against me, or the children." Judge errs on the side of caution and grants the TRO because even though he knows she's probably lying. His future career as an elected official will be toast if he denies and something bad does actually happen. You can all sort it out in court. Boom! I have a buddy doing 15 years and it started just like that, it ended when she found out where he was having the kids watched for daycare and rented a room within the TRO space outlined. 15 years for violating a restraining order??? Sounds like something else is up there. It would be way to easy to show that he always used a particular daycare and she "just so happened" to rent a room within proximity. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2012 9:49:33 PM
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
There is only one rule regarding divorces. The man loses. Always. Ask me how I know. ![]() 50/50 here.
Hey, that's considered good if it's your batting average in professional baseball. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2012 9:59:10 AM
Originally Posted By jmt1991: My friend and his wife used a mediator. He told her flat out when she wanted to get divorced, that every cent that went to a lawyer was less money for her. She agreed, and it wound up being a semi-amicable divorce and very little money was used. Now if your wife is a mental case this won't work, but if she's smart she would agree to it. Every mediator around here is a joke and the agreements they produce are pathetic. That may not be true everywhere, obviously. Anyone using a mediator should have the resulting agreement reviewed by their own attorney. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2012 12:58:21 PM
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Originally Posted By jmt1991:
My friend and his wife used a mediator. He told her flat out when she wanted to get divorced, that every cent that went to a lawyer was less money for her. She agreed, and it wound up being a semi-amicable divorce and very little money was used. Now if your wife is a mental case this won't work, but if she's smart she would agree to it. Every mediator around here is a joke and the agreements they produce are pathetic. That may not be true everywhere, obviously. Anyone using a mediator should have the resulting agreement reviewed by their own attorney. Both parties should definitely have it reviewed by their attorneys. If you can keep the attorney activity to a minimum, that's always a plus. But you're right, every situation is different. I hear some of the guys' stories in here, and I really feel for them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2012 11:40:40 PM
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
There is only one rule regarding divorces. The man loses. Always. Ask me how I know. ![]() This is wrong! Ask me how I know. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 1:02:46 AM
أَبْغَضُ الْحَلَال إِلَى اللَّهِ الطَّلَاق
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 1:13:09 AM
I filed first. My ex claimed we could amicably split the property. By that, she meant I'd get all the liabilities, and she'd get everything that had any value. Didn't help me to file first, I was dealing with crazy. I wound up giving up a good bit, just so I wouldn't have to pay for a trial divorce, and role the dice with an ex who was willing to lie about everything. I was also fortunate to be served with a bullshit TRO at work. As an HR mgr, that was embarassing.
Get a good attorney who represents you, prepare for the worst, but present the outward appearance of being reasonable. If you ex doesn't go crazy, maybe you will be one of the lucky ones who doesn't suffer a super nasty divorce. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 5:49:09 AM
Originally Posted By SplintNicket:
Originally Posted By seven-six-two:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Constitutionally there needs to be a basis for this. People don't just get restraining orders because they want them. "People" don't. Women do. She simply goes to the judge and says: "He has a violent temperament, your honor. He also has a gun collection that is huge. He's in to tactical assualt weapons, has numerous handguns, shotguns, and trains for tactical situations using human shaped targets (USPSA). He even believes it's right to shoot police officers. I am about to file for divorce, which will make him really, really angry, and I fear he may do something violent against me, or the children." Judge errs on the side of caution and grants the TRO because even though he knows she's probably lying. His future career as an elected official will be toast if he denies and something bad does actually happen. You can all sort it out in court. Boom! No, they don't. Two ways to get an order issued against you in NYS: Criminal charges brought against you in local or county court and.... no criminal charges and Order is issued in Family Court, as long as the parties were married or had a child in common. The group of those qualifying for the Family Court route was recently expanded beyond that married/ child requirement. I serve a fair number of people with Orders. Many of those served are confused about why they are the subject of an Order, so while I don't give them "legal advice", we talk about why the Order was issued. Usually the Order has a copy of the protected parties statement to the Court attached, so we go over that.......and a LOT of them sound just like the commentary above. Not saying that the statements are false, but the allegations are very similar to whats above. Emotional trauma, some physical threats or abuse, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 6:17:34 AM
Originally Posted By PAgunner:
Originally Posted By PinePig:
Originally Posted By seven-six-two:
Originally Posted By BushBoar:
Constitutionally there needs to be a basis for this. People don't just get restraining orders because they want them. "People" don't. Women do. She simply goes to the judge and says: "He has a violent temperament, your honor. He also has a gun collection that is huge. He's in to tactical assualt weapons, has numerous handguns, shotguns, and trains for tactical situations using human shaped targets (USPSA). He even believes it's right to shoot police officers. I am about to file for divorce, which will make him really, really angry, and I fear he may do something violent against me, or the children." Judge errs on the side of caution and grants the TRO because even though he knows she's probably lying. His future career as an elected official will be toast if he denies and something bad does actually happen. You can all sort it out in court. Boom! I have a buddy doing 15 years and it started just like that, it ended when she found out where he was having the kids watched for daycare and rented a room within the TRO space outlined. 15 years for violating a restraining order??? Sounds like something else is up there. It would be way to easy to show that he always used a particular daycare and she "just so happened" to rent a room within proximity. I had to read that a couple of times to grasp what he was saying. The person seeking the Restraining Order does not get to use it as both sword and shield. There is a great deal more to the story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 6:19:18 AM
Originally Posted By cochran9304:
You have a lot confused in the OP. Some observations. 1. Being the first name on a petition is not an advantage. Generally, a husband lets the wife file. However, when the first name on the petition is that of the husband, it is a tip off to the court that there are some dire problems with the wife. If the woman's name is first is that a tip off to the court that there are some dire problems with the husband? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 7:23:01 AM
Originally Posted By DvlDog:
Originally Posted By Slimbone:
I did mine Pro Se (myself) in CT back in 2000 and it was limited contested. No kids but the bat want my property, loot and pension. No kids thank God. I learned alot about the judicial system real fucking quick. The court clerks helped me out with the some of the formailities even though they probably shouldn't have. I think the clerks hated my ex just as much as I did. The bitch got two things out of it: jack and shit. I nearly got a stomach ulcer. Feeling froggy? Try Pro Se. Horrible idea. Fully 1/3 of my wifes business is people who tried Pro Se and got laughed out of court. If your state has uncontested just hire an attorney to do the document prep. Keep in mind that you are only paying the attorney for the preparation of the document, not to call them 3 times a day for moral support. Glad it worked out for you but Pro Se is a good way to lose your ass. Court clerks are not lawyers. If they do anything beyond pointing to the rack of forms they are in ethical trouble. I guess you missed the sarcasm with my comment about the stomach ulcer.. Yeah, your right...contested, limited contested...bad idea. Uncontested...why the hell not? Most people should be able to fill in the blanks on a form. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 8:01:22 AM
I'm in PA so may be different for you.
When I looked into mine, wifey kept yelling at me to go file, go file. So naturally I thought she was up to something. Talked to attorney and found out there is absolutely no advantage to being the filer or respondent. Guess she just wanted to be able to cry boo goo he's divorcing me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 8:16:59 AM
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By GaryM:
I keep hearing it is better to file for divorce than allowing the spouse to be the one to do so. Why? What are the advantages of being the petitioner instead of the respondent? The context would be a mutually agreed upon divorce with no children and both parties pretty much in agreement over how things should be split. If that is totally true then you don't even really need a lawyer. However, things can go to hell in a handbasket quickly and it turns into a huge ugly mess. My sister is a family law attorney and I hear about all kinds of nasty cases. Please share some stories !!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 8:28:29 AM
I heard that too.
It is false. The women are always the plaintiff and men are always the defendant (at least in MI and most states). Which implies that like any trial...the plaintiff accuses and the defendant defends. Translation: she is the saint and you are the dirt bag that will pay.....forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 8:46:06 AM
I made my first wife file for the divorce, everything worked out OK for me. We never had much to fight over anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 9:12:26 AM
Originally Posted By Zaphod: There is only one rule regarding divorces. The man loses. Always. Ask me how I know. ![]() Not true
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2012 9:43:34 AM
Maybe only if you have nothing. Divorce is serious and you got play the game by hiring Lawyers. Just try to agree between you and the wife. Then push it along with your Lawyer to get it done. Again don;t sweat the small stuff . Keep Focused.
|
|
|