SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: FaultLine who wrote (13683)10/24/2003 2:05:10 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) of 793883
 
I've taken a pass through the material before for a case a few years ago involving a couple, both of whom lied about living in Indiana because one of them knew a cheap lawyer there, so they lied to the court in Indiana and got what appeared to be a valid divorce.

Then the husband "remarried" and had kids.

The upshot of the case was the judge ruled that they were estopped from arguing that they weren't divorced, under the principle of unclean hands. Which, I pointed out, would probably not be binding on their heirs.

It was a mess. But at least they didn't have a substantial amount of money to litigate over. That would have been Jarndyce v. Jarndyce redux.

Sometimes I think about what could happen if either of them won the lottery. And shudder.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News