There’s more to consider than just the mutual friendship.
Such as whether someone is seriously in the wrong. You wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) fail to report a friend for committing murder. Hard as it would be to do the right thing, doing the wrong thing is much worse. Likewise, sitting on the fence in a divorce case involving mutual friends would be wrong if you are a witness to one of the two spouses abusing the other spouse or the couple’s children, or wasting the family funds on drugs or a paramour, for example.
But if you are not a witness to any wrongdoing by either spouse that is relevant to the divorce action, and if there is nothing in either spouse’s conduct that gives you cause to terminate your friendship or to dislike either one of them, it’s likely the wisest course of action to inform your mutual friends that the divorce action does not change your friendship with either of them, that you wish to remain friends with both of them, and that you would appreciate it if neither of them would try to have you give testimony for or against either of them.
My answer to your question is going to be a generalized answer to a hypothetical question. Before you take any real-life legal action in relation to real, existing laws, you will need to ensure you understand now the real, existing laws are construed and applied. And you would likely benefit from consulting with an attorney in your jurisdiction who is familiar with the law there. With that stated:
If I understand your question correctly, you are asking a question involving this scenario:
A divorce law currently exists.
The law may change or you know it is going to change.
Under the current law, you could benefit from its provisions.
You want to take advantage of the benefits that the current law provides before those benefits disappear after the change to the law goes into effect.
So, your question is, can you file for divorce now to take advantage of the benefits of an existing law before the law changes? You certainly could. It is not uncommon for people to take action under the provisions of laws that are about to change, so that they can take advantage of the provisions in the old law that will no longer exist after the changes go into effect. This happens with tax law frequently.
If you filed for divorce under an old law’s provisions to obtain the benefits the old law bestows and if your decree of divorce was granted before the law changed, it is likely that the new laws would not apply to your case. You would, however, still want to ensure that the changes to the law do not operate such that the changes are not retroactive or invalidate any pending divorce actions filed under the old law.
In response to this question, “Have you ever thought someone was making a mistake by getting a divorce?,” I stated (and I summarize here) some people need to divorce. It’s good that the option for divorce exists for their protection, but those who think divorce is the solution to their problem(s) are sadly mistaken. For these people divorce does not solve any problem and just creates a host of new problems.
Recently, someone left a comment on my answer stating that taking the position that most dating and marriage partnerships should stay together consigns both spouses to misery for no reason. Instead, she argued, we need to change divorce culture so that divorce isn’t seen as a failure automatically leading to bitter feuding. It can be, she concluded, a great source of growth for both people, if we just treat it as the next chapter of our lives.
I’ve never claimed that most dating and marriage partnerships should stay together. Some relationships (dating and marriage alike) are so dangerous and/or toxic that they need to end and end without delay. But comparing dating to marriage is a false equivalence.
Besides, for most people, the purpose of dating is finding someone you want as a spouse and who wants you as a spouse, so that you can form a family together.
Ending a dating relationship can be at least disappointing at worst and painful (even extremely painful), but the level of commitment in a dating relationship is nowhere near (or at least should be nowhere near) the level of commitment in a marriage (especially once children are born and become a part of the family).
People who marry should do so (and most do so) with the intent that marriage and family are not only a life-long commitment, but the most important commitment of their lives. When a spouse betrays that commitment, the consequences are much graver than when two people stop dating.
Divorce also involves having to divide a household and custody of children. At least one spouse loses his/her home. Assets and personal property get divided. Plans for “growing old together” in retirement are usually blown to smithereens, and both spouses have to re-adjust, usually by having to work many years longer than they originally planned to make up for the financial hit divorce causes. Spouses who were financially dependent on their spouses, now find themselves having to enter the workforce after years-long absences from the workforce making a meager income to get by. Kids are devastated by their parents’ divorce, and so the parents find themselves having to deal with that crisis on top of their own individual personal crises their going through at the same time.
The family is the necessary, indispensable foundation of a peaceful, prosperous society. We don’t make people happier by discouraging marriage or making divorce too easy to get.
Those whose marriages aren’t plagued by violence or mental or emotional cruelty, but who believe divorce is the solution to their problem(s) are sadly mistaken. For these people divorce does not solve any problem and just creates a host of new problems.
Most people who divorce not only didn’t need to, it was the worst thing they could have done to themselves and their family. If they would work on bettering themselves (both of them trying to be the kind of spouse they want and need) and then turn their attention to bettering the marriage, most marriages could be happy and fulfilling ones. Not perfect ones (there is no such thing), but happy, worthwhile marriages. This takes effort and sacrifice, and patience and trial and error, but the results are still better than a needless divorce.
The idea that we can make divorce easier on people by acting as though “it’s not a failure” on some many levels and to such a great degree cannot change the reality of the situation. To suggest that we “change divorce culture” to be seen as “a great source of growth” for the divorcing spouses would not only grossly cheapen marriage, it would be perpetrating a cruel, destructive fraud on both individuals and society at large.
My name is Stephanie from flingorlove.com and honestly, I usually wouldn’t bother emailing about this, but I researched and gathered as much data and stats as I could about various divorce statistics and put it all together in a massive blog post (84 stats to be precise).
The answer (at least for the jurisdiction where I practice divorce law (Utah)) is: no, a lawyer has no ethical obligation to dissuade a client from seeking a divorce. That does not mean, however, that a lawyer is ethically barred from urging a client to explore the possibility of salvaging a strained or broken marriage instead of ending it, if the lawyer feels that divorce may not be in the client’s and/or the client’s family’s (and the client is a member of his/her own family) best interest.
Indeed, there have been times when I’ve met with a client or potential client who is contemplating divorce and I have, based upon what information the client has provided to me, concluded that while there may be serious problems in the marriage and family, divorce is not or may not be the best response to those problems.
Divorce is a very difficult thing to recover from or reverse. Often, when a spouse seeks and obtains a divorce, he/she is shocked and devastated to learn that divorce wasn’t the answer to the spouse’s troubles. If a marriage can be repaired and healed, that is usually far better (especially when a married couple has children) than divorce. It’s always worth considering and pursuing reasonable efforts to save a marriage before contemplating divorce.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
My answer comes from the perspective of a divorce lawyer who’s been in practice for 26 years. Note that I believe in marriage. Although I am a divorce lawyer myself, I am not divorced, and God willing, I never will be. I would like nothing better than for everyone to be so happily married that I need to find another line of work. I support and advocate for marriage. And under the right circumstances, I believe in remarriage. While there are plenty of fun, satisfying, and fulfilling things one can and should do as an unmarried person, my life would be comparatively empty without my wife, my children, and the incomparable joys of being a husband and father. For all the people who tell you how glad they are to be unmarried and childless, few really mean it.
If you found your first marriage to be difficult, the odds are that a second marriage will be harder than your first. This is not always the case, but it usually is. This is not to say that if your first marriage failed you should not want or try to remarry to seek and enjoy the blessings of marriage for yourself and to be a blessing to your spouse. If, however, you caused your first divorce or even struggled in your first marriage because of your own demons, you’ve likely got some serious character and personality flaws to correct before you can remarry successfully. Resolving your personal issues and correcting course not insurmountable, but it is unavoidable, if you want a second marriage to work. But take heart: it can be done, it’s worth doing.
I was once asked what I believe the three main causes of divorce are. I answered that question with this: While there are many reasons one may need or feel the need to divorce, the “top 3” reasons are, in my experience: 1. Broken trust (whether that is caused by infidelity or hiding a substance abuse problem or failing to “pull one’s own weight” in the marriage relationship, etc.); 2. Placing self-interest ahead of fostering the marriage partnership (which usually takes the form of expecting your spouse to be perfect and to be solely or primarily responsible for your happiness); and 3. Immaturity and/or some kind of mental health disorder.
Thus, while nobody can ensure a marriage never ends in divorce it is crucial to your marriage (whether it’s your first or second) that you and your spouse be and want to be trustworthy, be devoted, be responsible, be sober, and that you care and want to for your individual and your spouse’s mental and physical health. If you or your prospective spouse feel that’s asking too much, don’t marry for the second (or even for the first) time.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
First, some marriages need to end in divorce. That is why divorce exists. But divorce is not always the answer when one or both spouses is/are miserable. Far too many divorces are not only unnecessary, but take things from bad to worse. For those marriages that need not end in divorce, teach and exemplify:
belief in God;
trust—humbly—in God;
that God’s plan for His children includes marriage and family (so He will help you when you and your spouse turn to Him for guidance and strength to overcome);
love for and service to God;
Loving and serving God leads us to loving and serving others (especially your spouse and children). Loving and serving others leads us to love and to serve God. You cannot sustainably have one without the other;
Go to church together and with your children. Associate with other families and learn from and support each other. It’s soothing and encouraging to see you’re not alone in the struggles couples and families face. It’s good to have others in your community to whom you can turn for support in good times and bad.
mercy and forgiveness for human faults and frailties;
Don’t demand perfection from your spouse or yourself—that’s impossible—but strive to be your best. Don’t exploit your spouse.
This does not mean that wrongs go unpunished and unrestituted, but it does mean that “the punishment fit the crime,” as the saying goes;
Marriage and family is a major purpose of our lives—it’s part of God’s plan for each of us;
Marry because you want “us” to be happy, supported, and fulfilled together. If you marry merely for “what’s in it for me,” you’re not ready or worthy to marry;
Being equals in marriage does not mean that you and your spouse are the same in every respect. Accept it. Adapt to it. Celebrate it. Don’t forget it.
Be honest in your dealings with your spouse and worthy of trust.
Accept that certain aspects of a good married life and of single life are incompatible, so those aspects of single life must be left behind and replaced to serve your role as a spouse and parent;
Accept the bitter aspects of married and family life with the sweet;
“Anyone who imagines that bliss is normal is going to waste a lot of time running around shouting that he’s been robbed. The fact is that most putts don’t drop, most beef is tough, most children grow up to just be people, most successful marriages require a high degree of mutual toleration, most jobs are more often dull than otherwise. Life is like an old time rail journey…delays…sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders and jolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiful vistas and thrilling burst of speed.” — Gordon B. Hinckley
Learn to make the compromises in your habits and lifestyle that marriage requires.
Don’t die on the hill of whose responsibility it is to take out the trash, whether “breakfast for dinner” is untenable, etc. Go to movies and restaurants you don’t like sometimes, if going is something your spouse enjoys (he/she needs to make the same accommodations for you too).
It will seem as though you are “making sacrifices” when in reality you are continuing to grow and mature as a person. You are developing dormant talents and new skills that a successful marriage needs to thrive.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Why are so many attorneys seemingly against legal separation? I truly feel in my circumstance its best for me/us. Is it because they wont make as much money? We have already started the divorce process. Can it be switched?
I can’t speak for all divorce attorneys, and I am not an attorney licensed to practice law in Illinois (I practice divorce and family law in Utah), but I can tell you why I personally don’t like going the temporary separation route.
Too many people divorce needlessly. Too many people divorce only to discover that their spouses and marriages weren’t their problem and/or that divorce wasn’t the solution. I support desires and efforts to save marriage. While legal separation may sound to some like a good way to “get some space” to contemplate whether one should stay married or should divorce, I’ve found that:
□ legal separation tends to damage a marriage far more than fostering its survival; and
□ by the time one wants a legal separation, he or she really wants a divorce and is only postponing divorce out of fear or laziness or for the sake of appeasing the other spouse or “letter him/her down easy”.
While I am sure there are people out there whose legal separation proved that “absence makes the hear grow fonder” and helped them “wake up” and realize that their marriage is worth saving, I know no such people.
If I recall correctly, I’ve seen one legal separation end with the couple later reconciling. In every other legal separation situation, the couple has eventually divorced. So you can see where this is going: why go to the additional trouble, expense, and emotional ordeal of obtaining a legal separation order if you’re going to end up divorcing anyway and having to go through more of the same kind of effort, wait, expense, and pain again?
I understand the desire to give the marriage every last reasonable opportunity to survive. I understand the desire to take every reasonable effort to save it. But at the same time, I don’t see the point in pouring time, effort, care, and money into what is for most a hopeless cause. **That stated,** I would much rather “waste” time, effort, care, and money on taking every reasonable effort to save my marriage if it meant having the peace of mind that I gave saving my marriage everything I could in an effort to save it before deciding that it was not worth saving or that I alone could not save it and concluding that divorce was the only remaining option.
Are there divorce lawyers who discourage legal separation because they make (or believe they make) less money working on a legal separation instead of a divorce? I’m sure there are. But not all of us are out to take the client for all he or she is worth (you’d be wise to ensure you don’t hire a greedy lawyer, but there are some among us who are decent, caring, trustworthy professionals worth seeking out). In my experience, if one wants to do all he or she can to save his or her marriage, then working to improve yourself as a spouse, making changes in your family environment, and giving your best efforts to some good marriage counseling are certainly worthwhile. Legal separation rarely, if ever, helps improve a marriage. It tends to weaken and destroy a marriage.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Every time you hear about divorce, what are the 3 main issues that lead to divorce these days?
I have been a divorce and family law attorney for 26 years. In that time I have spoken to thousands of people about divorce and their reasons for seeking a divorce. While there are many reasons one may need or feel the need to divorce, the “top 3” reasons are, in my experience:
Broken trust (whether that is caused by infidelity or hiding a substance abuse problem or failing to “pull one’s own weight” in the marriage relationship, etc.)
Placing self-interest ahead of fostering the marriage partnership (which usually takes the form of expecting your spouse to be perfect and to be solely or primarily responsible for your happiness)
Immaturity and/or some kind of mental health disorder
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
So I want to ask my dad to divorce my mom. She has a troublesome personality, to say. I’m currently 16 and the relationship between not just me and my mother, but also the one between her and my father, is not good in the slightest. Should I ask him?
Before answering this question myself, I looked at the other answers that have already been provided because I was expecting at least one of them to be along the lines of, “Whether your parents divorce is their choice, and thus none of your business.” And indeed I did.
It’s a comforting, and thus attempting, position to adopt. But it’s utterly false.
Given that you are now 16 years old and have, according to you, lived a life in the company of two enemies who happen to be spouses clearly makes your parents’ marriage and the possibility of divorce “your business.”
Being 16 years old, you are at a unique point in your life where you are starting to think and act more like an adult, but you are still a child. Unless you are unusually mature and wise for your age, there are still many things about adulthood and marriage and family life you don’t completely understand, so you need to respect your parents’ history and experience and thinking on the subject of divorce, if their positions on the subject differ from your own. At the same time, however, given that you have been living in a dysfunctional family for 16 years, your experience, observations, desires, and opinions clearly have weight as well.
If you determine that you have, in fairness and objectivity, determined in your own mind that your parents would be better off divorced, and you can persuasively articulate why, I can’t think of any reason why you wouldn’t have not only good reason, but the right as well, to argue the case for divorce to your parents.
If your parents refused to divorce, and you cannot bear to spend another moment of an acrimony-filled existence at home, another option you might consider would be having your parents permit you to leave their custody to live with grandparents or an aunt or uncle or older sibling who might be willing to take you in, if such an option exists. Depending upon the circumstances, that could be done on an informal basis without having to go through a guardianship proceeding, or it may require court action.
Finally, and as I mentioned before, if you happen to be mature and wise beyond your years, if you are able to support yourself financially (meaning that you can earn enough income to house, feed, and close yourself without contribution from your parents or the government), you might have the option of petitioning a court to declare you legally emancipated before you turn 18 years of age.
Either way, if your parents don’t want to divorce and you can stand being enmeshed in their dysfunctional marriage another moment, living away from them could be the right thing for you, if circumstances are conducive to it.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
JUDGE RYAN D. TENNEY authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER and JILL M. POHLMAN concurred.
TENNEY, Judge:
¶1 Under the Utah Code, there are ten “[g]rounds for divorce,” one of which is “adultery committed by the respondent subsequent to marriage.” Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-1(3)(b) (LexisNexis 2019). Interpreting this provision, our supreme court has held that evidence of adultery “subsequent to the filing of a divorce complaint is inadmissible for the purpose of establishing grounds for divorce,” though it can be “admissible as lending weight to and corroborating testimony as to prior acts” of infidelity. Vrontikis v. Vrontikis, 358 P.2d 632, 632 (Utah 1961).
¶2 When Jill Nix filed for divorce from Roland Nix Jr., she alleged “adultery committed by Roland during the marriage” as one of “the grounds for dissolution of this marriage.” During his subsequent deposition, Roland declined to answer a question from Jill’s attorney about whether he’d had extramarital sexual relations “since the marriage.” The district court later concluded that this non-response constituted an adoptive admission that Roland had committed adultery before Jill filed for divorce. Based on this conclusion, the court awarded Jill a divorce on the ground of adultery.
¶3 Roland now appeals that decision. As explained below, we agree that Roland’s non-response did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that Roland committed adultery before Jill filed her divorce petition. We accordingly reverse.
¶4 Jill filed for divorce from Roland in August 2017. In her petition, Jill asserted two “grounds for dissolution of [the] marriage,” one of which was “adultery committed by Roland during the marriage.” Jill also asserted cruelty as an alternative ground for divorce. But that alternative ground was not further litigated below, the district court never ruled on it, and neither party has raised any issue about it on appeal.
¶5 In his answer, Roland “denie[d]” Jill’s “[g]rounds.” But Roland did not want the marriage to continue, so he counter-petitioned for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences.
¶6 Roland was later deposed. During his deposition, the following exchange occurred between Jill’s counsel, Roland, and Roland’s counsel:
[Jill’s counsel:] Have you had any sexual relations with someone other than Jill since the marriage?
[Roland:] It is none of your business.
[Jill’s counsel:] Counsel I am entitled to know.
[Roland’s counsel:] I question the relevance. I don’t think that adultery or anything has been alleged in the pleadings.
. . . .
[Roland:] We are separated and that is none of their business.
. . . . [brief break taken by the parties]
[Jill’s counsel:] We left on the question of adultery. Mr. Nix what is your response?
After another objection and then more discussion between counsel, Roland made a somewhat vague reference to a woman with whom he’d apparently had some type of relationship. A short time later, Roland was asked, “And have you engaged in sexual relations with this person?” Roland answered, “Yes.”
¶7 Roland and Jill eventually settled most aspects of their divorce. But when they weren’t able to agree on the ground for divorce, Jill’s counsel requested a trial on that issue. At a scheduling conference, however, the parties and the court agreed on an alternative procedure under which the parties would submit memoranda about the ground for divorce, after which the court would hear oral argument on the matter.
¶8 In her memorandum, Jill pointed to Roland’s non-response to the deposition question of whether he’d “had any sexual relations with someone other than Jill since the marriage.” From this, Jill asked the court to draw “an adverse inference” that Roland had “committed adultery subsequent to the marriage.” In addition, Jill pointed to Roland’s express admission that he’d “engaged in sexual relations with this person.”
¶9 In his responsive memorandum, Roland asked the court to deny Jill’s request for an adultery-based divorce. Roland asserted that under Vrontikis v. Vrontikis, 358 P.2d 632 (Utah 1961), any adultery that he had committed after Jill filed for divorce could not constitute a ground for divorce. And Roland then argued that Jill had offered no evidence that he had “committed adultery prior to her filing for divorce.”
¶10 After briefing and then a hearing, the district court issued a written decision. There, the court agreed that under Vrontikis, “adulterous conduct subsequent to a divorce petition does not constitute fault,” but that “evidence of such conduct can be used to lend weight” to other evidence that the party had “committed adultery prior to the divorce petition.” (Emphases omitted.) The court then concluded that although Roland had expressly admitted to adultery in his deposition, this express admission had only been to “adultery subsequent to the divorce petition, but prior to divorce finalization.”[2]
¶11 Given its understanding of Vrontikis, the court next considered whether there was any evidence of pre-filing adultery. The court concluded that there was. In the court’s view, Roland’s non-response to the deposition question about whether he’d had sexual relations “since the marriage” qualified as an adoptive admission under rule 801(d)(2)(B) of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Notably, the court not only regarded this as proof “that Roland did commit adultery,” but also as proof “that Roland’s adultery caused the divorce,” i.e., proof that the adultery happened pre-filing. Thus, the court concluded that even if “Roland’s express admission [was] not, stand[ing] alone, a grounds for fault, the adoptive admission satisfie[d] Jill’s burden to show that Roland’s adultery caused the divorce.” Based on this, the court later “awarded Jill a decree of divorce on the grounds of adultery.”
¶12 Roland subsequently filed a motion under rule 59 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure “for [a] new trial or for an alteration of judgment on the issue of grounds for divorce.” Roland challenged the district court’s ruling on several fronts, including procedural fairness, incorrect application of the adoptive admission standard, and insufficiency of the evidence. After Jill opposed the motion, the court denied it. Roland timely appealed.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶13 Roland challenges the district court’s denial of his rule 59 motion. As he did below, Roland assails this ruling for several reasons. We need address only one of them: Roland’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s determination that he committed adultery before Jill filed for divorce.
¶14 A district court ordinarily has “some discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a new trial.” Hansen v. Stewart, 761 P.2d 14, 17 (Utah 1988). But because Roland’s “challenge rests on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we will reverse only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.” In re Estate of Anderson, 2016 UT App 179, ¶ 7, 381 P.3d 1179 (quotation simplified); accord Hansen, 761 P.2d at 17.
ANALYSIS
¶15 The district court determined that Roland had committed adultery before Jill filed for divorce. It based this determination on Roland’s non-response to a question about this subject in his deposition, which the court regarded as an adoptive admission of pre-filing adultery.
¶16 On appeal, Roland first argues that the district court erred in concluding that his non-response qualified as an adoptive admission. But we need not decide whether this was so. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the non-response did qualify as an adoptive admission, the court was still required to point to some evidence that Roland had committed adultery before Jill filed for divorce. See Vrontikis v. Vrontikis, 358 P.2d 632, 632 (Utah 1961) (holding that evidence of adultery “subsequent to the filing of a divorce complaint is inadmissible for the purpose of establishing grounds for divorce,” though it can be “admissible as lending weight to and corroborating testimony as to prior acts” of infidelity).
¶17 Roland argues that there was no such evidence. Of note, Roland points out that, in the deposition exchange at issue, he “was never specifically asked whether he had had sexual relations with someone other than Jill since the marriage, but prior to the filing of the petition for divorce.” Having reviewed the portion of the deposition that is in the record, we agree. While Jill’s counsel asked Roland whether he had engaged in extramarital sexual relations, Jill’s counsel never asked Roland when he had done so. As a result, with respect to the critical issue of timing, the question and non-answer that supported the court’s adoptive-admission determination were silent.
¶18 Jill nevertheless points to Roland’s express admission of adultery. But on this, the district court only found that Roland had expressly admitted to post–filing adultery, and Jill has not challenged the court’s temporal limitation of its own finding on appeal. In any event, we’ve reviewed the exchange ourselves. We see nothing in it in which Roland said that his extramarital conduct was limited to post-filing behavior, but we also see nothing in it in which he admitted to any pre-filing conduct. Instead, as with the (alleged) adoptive admission, the timing of Roland’s behavior simply never came up.
¶19 This same defect exists with respect to the small amount of other evidence that Jill provided below to inferentially support her claims about Roland’s adultery. For example, Jill provided the court with a check that Roland had given her for alimony. This check was embossed with a picture of Roland and another woman, and in the identification block in the upper corner, it identified the other woman’s last name as “Nix.” Even accepting Jill’s contention that this could inferentially show that there was a sexual relationship between Roland and the other woman, what matters here is that the check was dated September 2019—which was after Jill had filed for divorce.
¶20 This leaves us with Jill’s final argument, which is to rely heavily on the favorable standard of review. Because Roland challenges the district court’s ruling on sufficiency grounds, we’re required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s determination. But Roland’s argument presents us with a “no evidence” challenge—i.e., he argues that “even with the evidence in the record, nothing would demonstrate that . . . Roland committed adultery prior to the filing of the Petition for Divorce.” And to defeat such a claim, Jill “need only point to a scintilla of credible evidence from the record that supports the finding of fact in order to overcome [Roland’s] ‘no evidence’ assertion.” Wilson Supply, Inc. v. Fraden Mfg. Corp., 2002 UT 94, ¶ 22, 54 P.3d 1177.
¶21 She hasn’t. Even on such a review, there must be some evidence to support the determination in question. As we have explained in another context, a “reviewing court will stretch the evidentiary fabric as far as it will go,” but “this does not mean that the court can take a speculative leap across a remaining gap in order to sustain a verdict.” State v. Pullman, 2013 UT App 168, ¶ 14, 306 P.3d 827 (quotation simplified). Here, the evidence demonstrates that Roland engaged in sexual activity with another woman before his divorce was finalized. After all, he expressly admitted as much. But Vrontikis requires evidence of adultery at a particular time—namely, before the petitioner filed for divorce. Jill points to no evidence, and we see none, that even inferentially says anything about when Roland engaged in extramarital sexual activity. Without such evidence, the district court’s finding that Roland had engaged in pre-filing extramarital sexual relations cannot stand. We accordingly reverse for insufficient evidence.[3]
CONCLUSION
¶22 There was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s determination that Roland committed adultery before Jill filed for divorce. We accordingly reverse that decision and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[4]
[1] Because the parties share the same last name, we’ll follow our normal practice and refer to them by their first names, with no disrespect intended by the apparent informality. Also, for purposes of consistency and readability, we’ll use the parties’ first names (and corresponding pronouns) when quoting references to them from the record or the briefing, and we’ll do so without using brackets to note any such alterations.
[2] We note that Roland did not actually draw this chronological line in the portion of the deposition in which he made his express admission. But neither party has challenged the court’s determination that the express admission was only to post-filing adulterous conduct.
[3] Our determination leaves a potential wrinkle about what should happen next. At the close of his brief, Roland asks us to not only reverse on insufficiency grounds, but also to “alter the Ruling” ourselves to grant him a divorce on “the grounds of irreconcilable differences.” Roland provides us with no authority that establishes our ability to modify an order in this manner, however, so this request is inadequately briefed. Moreover, Jill petitioned for divorce on an alternative ground, but neither party on appeal has competently briefed the question of whether Jill would be entitled to continue litigating that ground if we reverse the district court’s adultery-based decree. Without such briefing, we decline to decide the question in the first instance.
[4] Jill has asked for her attorney fees on appeal. See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). Because she is not the prevailing party in this appeal, we deny her request.
I don’t think it’s bad to get a divorce. I think it’s more unhealthy to have miserable lives.
— Ginger Wynn.
What are your thoughts on this statement?
This statement tries to express a valid point, but it does so in a logically confused way.
The statement “I don’t think it’s bad to get a divorce. I think it’s more unhealthy to have miserable lives” falsely presumes that divorce will cure or prevent what makes a dysfunctional (or worse) marriage dysfunctional.
Sometimes a marriage is so toxic and harmful as to require termination. In such cases divorce is not only justified, but necessary.
Sometimes the trouble one or both spouses is suffering in a marriage can be remedied by divorce.
Sometimes the trouble a marriage is causing one or both spouses can be remedied by divorce.
But not always.
Sometimes the solution is “mend it, don’t end it”; more often than you’d think the cure for dysfunction and discord in a marriage is staying married and working on improving the marriage, not destroying it.
Far too often I see people divorce in the false belief that their spouses/their marriages are making them miserable only to learn, after the damage is done, that their spouses/their marriages are not the cause(s) of their troubles. They realize that divorcing only compounds their suffering. They consequently become even more miserable.
So here is what I submit is a more accurate statement: It is not bad to get a divorce when you truly have no better alternative.
Don’t divorce unless divorce you need to. Know that “mend it, don’t end it” is not the answer before you seek a divorce.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
Why do people get married only to divorce a few years later? Doesn’t really sound like love to me.
With the exception of those divorces that take place shortly after a marriage due to abuse, mental illness, fraud, and those kinds of things OR a divorce for which there are common law or statutory grounds (adultery, impotency of the respondent at the time of marriage, willful desertion, willful neglect, habitual drunkenness of the respondent, conviction of the respondent for a felony, irreconcilable differences of the marriage, incurable insanity), a divorce after a just a few years of marriage between two otherwise normal people is usually due (in no particular order) to:
realizing the marriage was a mistake, that it’s a genuinely good idea and mutually beneficial to both spouses to end the marriage and a bad idea to spend any more time or effort trying to salvage it; or
selfishness and/or fear or shame; something that renders one to feel unworthy or unwilling to commit to the success of the marriage and family
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
How do I stop being afraid of divorcing? I’m so scared. I’ve been a stay-at-home mother for 18 years. I have health issues. I don’t know if I can provide for myself.
Good on you for asking the question before you decide whether to jump into the deep end of divorce with both feet. Divorcing without having any idea whether it will do you and your family more harm than good rarely ends well.
Most urgent question: If I stay married, does that put my life at risk, i.e., am I at serious risk of my spouse maiming or killing me? If the answer is yes, then you need to run, not walk, away now, get to safety from being killed, and worry about divorce and the aftermath later. No marriage is worth staying in, no spouse worth staying with, if your spouse is murderously violent. Even if leaving your spouse leaves you penniless at the moment, you can overcome that problem. It is not worth risking your life for material comforts.
If your dysfunctional life/marriage is not life-threatening: then the answer to your question is, as a matter of fact, easy to find. The difficulty lies not in finding the answer, but summoning the courage and the will to act in accordance with the answer.
How to analyze your situation. Here is a simple but highly clear and effective way to analyze your question to get to the answer used by Ben Carson. Dr. Carson is the former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and before that was one of the best neurosurgeons in the world. Before that, he grew up without a poor black child in the care of a mentally ill mother. He knows a little bit about problems and how to tackle them successfully. One of the ways to identify and choose acceptable risks is to ask yourself four questions, or do what Dr. Carson calls a Best/Worst Analysis (B/WA):
What is the best thing that can happen if I do this?
What is the worst thing that can happen if I do this?
What is the best thing that can happen if I don’t do it?
What is the worst thing that can happen if I don’t do it?
Ask and answer key questions. Here are some (some, not all) of the questions you should ask in conducting your best/worst assessment:
The question of why. Why am I contemplating divorce? Divorcing for the wrong reason(s) will almost surely result in divorce doing you (and your spouse and children) wrong.
It’s not just good to ask why, it’s crucial. Undertaking anything without knowing why you are doing it (and whether you should) results in poor, haphazard preparation and planning, wasted time, effort, and money, unnecessary fear, and doubt, and flagging focus and motivation. “If you know the why, you can live any how.“ (Friedrich Nietzsche)
A key “why” question: Am I hoping to “escape”? Let me explain what I mean. Taking pain pills to treat pain to help you heal better or faster from an illness or injury is good. Taking pain pills in an effort to escape the burdens of life only makes things (a lot) worse.
If you see divorce or marriage as a means of escaping personal unhappiness, guilt, fear, weaknesses, etc., then you are thinking about divorce and marriage wrong. If you are broken and marriage or divorce is a necessary step you need to take toward repairing yourself, then you’re on the right track. But staying married or divorcing to avoid responsibility for yourself and your demons will only result in 1) your personal weaknesses and their consequences getting worse, and 2) causing your spouse and children unnecessary and unfair collateral damage.
If you determine that divorce is an escape, research and find a good therapist or counselor to help you identify the real problems, the root of the problems, and what is needed to solve the problems. Taking that first step is, fortunately, easy. Once you’ve found someone competent, it really is as simple as making and keeping an appointment. The therapy itself will be as messy and upsetting as it is curative and restorative, but it is worth it. It is.
Is it a question of can’t or won’t?: If you honestly conclude that you need to divorce, are you afraid to divorce because you can’t take care of yourself or because you don’t want to take care of yourself? If you can’t take care of yourself, divorce may not be practical (trading the misery of unhappy marriage for the misery of poverty just exchanges one form or misery for another). If you can take care of yourself, perhaps you are not afraid of whether you can make it on your own but afraid to go back to work and/or live a reduced lifestyle.
If you can, and you are willing to do the work required, then figure out what is needed to achieve an single, independent, post-divorce life and the best way(s) to do so.
Bare minimum you need to have in place to be an independent adult:
church or other support system to help you get started and to guide you and encourage you (and remember: contribute as much or more than you “withdraw”; if your church gives you money or helps with groceries, then “pay it back” by volunteering, teach Sunday school, babysit your fellow parishioners’ kids sometimes, clean the chapel, help the pastor, visit the sick, etc. It will not only help keep your support system strong, it will help you be happier too, and you won’t feel like a moocher because you won’t be a moocher)
a job or jobs that generate sufficient income to support your needs.
budget
shelter you can afford (with essential utilities and furnishings)
food you can afford
clothing you can afford
bank or credit union account
phone and phone plan
health insurance
driver’s license (even if you don’t yet own a car; you may be called upon to drive or rent a car sometimes)
tool kit
friend
hobby (start with a library card)
emergency (rainy day) fund
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
I know of no legal way to force your spouse to filed for divorce against you, but you may not be aware of the fact that your spouse cannot prevent you from divorcing him/her.
Many people do not understand what no-fault divorce means. Some people mistakenly believe that no-fault divorce means, “My spouse cannot divorce me unless I am somehow at fault.” This is not true.
No fault divorce means that one can divorce his/her spouse regardless of whether his/her spouse has committed any marital fault.
What is marital fault, you may ask? each jurisdiction is a little different than another, but here is a basic list of what constitutes marital fault:
Adultery
Abandonment or desertion
Bigamy
Criminal conviction
Cruelty
Criminal conviction and/or imprisonment
Culture, religion, and disease
Financial backing
Force or fraud in obtaining the marriage
Impotence at time of marriage
Insanity/Mental illness/Mental incapacity
Marriage between close relatives
Mental or physical abuse
Willful neglect of spouse
Refusing to engage in sexual intercourse with spouse
Religious differences
Sexual orientation
Separation for an extended period of time
Substance abuse
Just because no-fault divorce exists does not mean you cannot still file for divorce on a marital fault-based ground or several fault-based grounds.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What are the most empirically robust (causal) factors that predict marital dissolution (divorce)?
I can give you my guess as to what I believe a rigorous study would reveal based upon my experience as a divorce and family lawyer for the past 25 years. I understand that this is anecdotal evidence, but here’s what I believe, based upon that anecdotal evidence, the empirical evidence would be.
Now I realize that what you may be asking is what kind of external influences and/or what kind of behaviors may be predictors of divorce. The Freakonomics kind of stuff where someone notices people with library cards are more or less likely to divorce than those who don’t (no, this is not a fact, I’m just using this is an illustrative example of the kind of interesting factoids some people like to find). I don’t have any such observations. But I believe I’ve been practicing divorce and family law long enough to know what causes divorce.
#1 is a tie:
#1. Mental and/or emotional pathology that goes untreated, unchecked, unmanaged, uncontrolled. These are what lead to physical and emotional abuse, substance abuse, other addictive behaviors, self-harm/suicide attempt, infidelity, and many other things we often believe to be the cause of divorce when they are really symptomatic of the root cause.
#1. Lack of commitment to the marriage. Both individual lack of commitment and a lack of mutual commitment. Successful marriages understand that while individual needs are important, the marriage and family is a cause bigger than each individual spouse. So many fail to understand that devoting yourself to the care and success of your marriage and family makes you a happier individual. Obviously, if and when your spouse is a dysfunctional, toxic, or abusive person, no amount of your individual devotion to the marriage and family can fix that. But two normal spouses of average physical, mental, and emotional health can achieve greater personal happiness and fulfillment by making the welfare of their marriage and family a priority.
#2. Selfishness. Particularly, the belief that a spouse exists to serve one’s interests, and that if the spouse does not satisfy that subjective standard, then divorce is warranted, perhaps even seen as necessary, in the minds of some people.
#2(a). Being unequally yoked. This doesn’t mean that both spouses have to do everything a marriage requires in equal measures. It does mean that each one needs to pull his or her own weight, needs to fulfill his and her duties to himself/herself and to each other to ensure the integrity and longevity of the marriage.
#3. Myopia, impatience, inability to delay gratification, unrealistic expectations. I see many divorces early in a marriage because one or both spouses are shocked to discover that marriage has not fulfilled all of their hopes and dreams within the first few years.
#4. Letting the cares of the world deplete your capacity to recognize, value, and do what matters most. I’ve seen many a marriage breakdown when too much emphasis is placed on what is otherwise a virtuous thing. Spending too much time at work. Being obsessively concerned with one’s health and appearance. Worrying too much about finances. Rather than bringing a couple closer together, they are wedges that drive couples apart. Sometimes violently, but in many cases they cause a husband and wife to grow apart slowly and imperceptibly until they reach a point of no return.
#5. Marrying too soon. Being insufficiently mature.
#6. Marrying too late. Although some believe that it is irresponsible to marry until one has achieved financial independence, it is that very independence that makes an interdependent marriage more difficult to achieve. Marrying later in life, when one is less malleable and more set in his/her ways, makes it harder to make the adjustments a happy and successful marriage requires, and makes it harder to recognize the benefits of sacrificing something good for something better in the context of marriage.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
First, the divorce rate is not currently higher than ever. It has been higher in the past. Unfortunately, the reason the divorce rate is declining is likely because fewer people are marrying, not because fewer married people are choosing not to divorce.
Second, there are some people who simply aren’t able to handle marriage, and there are times when divorce is not only justified, but necessary. But divorce for the sake of escaping chronic domestic violence, death, or crippling mental or emotional cruelty (among other good reasons) is clearly not why roughly half of all marriages end. Avoiding or ending marriage to avoid pain and disappointment makes about as much sense as refusing to drive your car to ensure you don’t get hurt in an accident; there’s more than enough pain and disappointment life holds for all of us, and it cannot be avoided, so denying yourself the benefits of marriage (or the convenience and freedom of driving), even after accounting for the costs, is silly.
Now to answer your question itself: Why is the divorce rate so high? Placing self-interest before the success of the marriage and family. People have started believing for the past couple of generations that marriage is a matter of individual preference and worth. In other words, if I am not happy in my marriage, then the marriage must be worthless, so I am justified in divorcing. This is as foolish as it is pointless.
We’re seeing the effects of disposable marriage on society at large as a result of such a mindset: less happiness (not more), more mental illness, more juvenile delinquency, rising crime rates, rising poverty, the growth of the welfare state to substitute for the nuclear family, etc.
Children (and we were all children once) need a loving mother and a father (yes, I realize that many children succeed in spite of the loss of one parent, but ask them if they are “glad” they didn’t have the benefits of a loving mother and father growing up and they’ll tell you they ache for it even now). Children fare much better in a nuclear family than in any other environment. The nuclear family is the bedrock of an ordered, safe, prosperous society.
Paradoxically, individual happiness depends greatly (though not solely) on caring about and facilitating the happiness of others. And there is no better way to develop a happiness-producing, less selfless routine and character than being a spouse and a parent. This is why, despite marriage and parenthood being so demanding and even at times heartbreaking, loving couples and parents will tell you the blessings and joys outweigh the demands and sacrifices. Marriage and family make us better people, and better people are happier people. So are their kids, and so are their kids friends and families too.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
I don’t think it’s bad to get a divorce. I think it’s more unhealthy to have miserable lives. — Ginger Wynn. What are your thoughts on this statement?
This statement tries to express a valid point, but it does so in a logically confused way.
The statement “I don’t think it’s bad to get a divorce. I think it’s more unhealthy to have miserable lives” falsely presumes that divorce will cure or prevent what makes a dysfunctional (or worse) marriage dysfunctional.
Sometimes a marriage is so toxic and harmful as to require termination. In such cases divorce is not only justified, but necessary.
Sometimes the trouble one or both spouses is suffering in a marriage can be remedied by divorce.
Sometimes the trouble a marriage is causing one or both spouses can be remedied by divorce.
But not always.
Sometimes the solution is “mend it, don’t end it”; more often than you’d think the cure for dysfunction and discord in a marriage is staying married and working on improving the marriage, not destroying it.
Far too often I see people divorce in the false belief that their spouses/their marriages are making them miserable only to learn, after the damage is done, that their spouses/their marriages are not the cause(s) of their troubles. They realize that divorcing only compounds their suffering. They consequently become even more miserable.
So here is what I submit is a more accurate statement: It is not bad to get a divorce when you truly have no better alternative.
Don’t divorce unless divorce you need to. Know that “mend it, don’t end it” is not the answer before you seek a divorce.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
There isn’t one. There can’t be. I’ll explain why and what you can and should do if you want to go the DIY divorce by the book route.
The main reason there is no “best DIY divorce book in the U.S.” is because each state has different divorce laws. While all the states’ divorce laws share many, many similarities, it’s impossible for one book (that one could manageably read and understand) to speak authoritatively about specific divorce law for all states.
Consequently, most DIY divorce books deal in generalizations, so that they can appeal and apply to a national audience (can’t write a bestseller on “DIY Iowa Divorce”). This is not to say that generalized books on the subject of divorce aren’t worth reading, but they Clearly are not the best way too undertake a DIY divorce (not to put too fine a point on it, but anyone who would try to do his or her divorce by himself/herself by reading one of these generalized books on divorce would be a fool—there is a much better way to go the DIY route).
That stated, I know there are people out there who have written DIY guidebooks and forms set on divorce for specific states. It wouldn’t hurt to check your local library and bookstores to see if you’re one of the lucky states where someone bothered to write a do-it-yourself book specifically on the divorce laws and procedures for your particular state. Just make sure that such a book is up-to-date. Divorce laws and rules of procedure change frequently.
It would also be a good idea and worth the effort to see if local attorneys have written a book on DIY divorce for your particular state. These are often offered through the attorney’s website in various forms: e-books, slideshows, “online seminars”, forms set, a link to purchase a hard copy of a self-published paperback, etc.
Be warned about local attorney-authored DIY divorce books: many lawyers (most, in my opinion) who write so-called “do-it-yourself divorce” books/guides often do so to overwhelm you, intimidate you, psych you out, and persuade you not to do it yourself and instead hire an attorney (specifically the attorney who wrote the book). Make sure the DIY book you get is a truly completed and effective tool.
BONUS: Even if you believe you have mastered the art of DIY divorce in preparing your own divorce pleadings and other court documents, please Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish: pay a few hundred dollars to meet and talk with an experienced, skilled divorce attorney to review your documents and to ensure they are complete and compliant before you file them with the court. It is well worth the investment. That doesn’t mean you must hire a lawyer throughout the whole process, just pay a lawyer to review your documents to ensure they are up to snuff before you file them. I daresay it’s a crucial part of the DIY process. It could be the difference between success or failure (and in divorce, most of the time you only get one shot to succeed; failure can often be irremediable and permanent).
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277