Does it really matter who with?????? Shouldn't the focus be on his betrayal, full stop?jcarter said:What is the name of your state? Tennessee
If adultery was admitted too, will he have to name whom with? What if he doesn't?
In the interrogatories, it asks him to state whom. If he doesn't, can or will the court make him?AHA said:Does it really matter who with?????? Shouldn't the focus be on his betrayal, full stop?
No, I don't..... but let me rephrase the statement..... He is not the one that admitted to the adultery.... it was I, now they are wanting me to state whom, when, where..... and I don't want to name the person..... to me it should not matter to him..... but I have been told that if I don't answer this question, then he could take me in front of the judge, and he can order me to tell or make me go to jail. What should I do?Silverplum said:From what I've googled, TN is a state that does not require "fault" to grant divorce.
Do you WANT a long and ugly battle?
Frankly, you should have been straight-up in your first post. Instead you chose to write in a misleading fashion. We don't appreciate that.jcarter said:No, I don't..... but let me rephrase the statement..... He is not the one that admitted to the adultery.... it was I, now they are wanting me to state whom, when, where..... and I don't want to name the person..... to me it should not matter to him..... but I have been told that if I don't answer this question, then he could take me in front of the judge, and he can order me to tell or make me go to jail. What should I do?
The OP might be the other woman rather than the wife...LOL...she may not want anyone to know.Silverplum said:From what I've googled, TN is a state that does not require "fault" to grant divorce.
Do you WANT a long and ugly battle?
Tennessee has both no fault and fault grounds for divorce, therefore, these are valid questions and you have to answer them. You can therefore expect that these facts will play a role in settlements and custody.jcarter said:What is the name of your state? Tennessee
If adultery was admitted too, will he have to name whom with? What if he doesn't?
While it is possible to obtain a no fault divorce in TN they actually have a long list of "fault" grounds for divorce, why wouldn't an injured spouse divorce using Adultery?Silverplum said:From what I've googled, TN is a state that does not require "fault" to grant divorce.
Do you WANT a long and ugly battle?
why would they??rmet4nzkx said:While it is possible to obtain a no fault divorce in TN they actually have a long list of "fault" grounds for divorce, why wouldn't an injured spouse divorce using Adultery?
They sure can.rmet4nzkx said:While it is possible to obtain a no fault divorce in TN they actually have a long list of "fault" grounds for divorce, why wouldn't an injured spouse divorce using Adultery?
But pointing out that it is ugly doesn't answer the question objectively or state the law. See the difference? AFTER that is answered we can delve into what options exist based on the facts, but aparently someone has already filed for divorce where Adultery is already admitted if interrogatories are issued. We need to focus on the questions, not debate how it might be in a perfect world where people tell the truth and don't do hurtful or unfair things.Silverplum said:They sure can.
I was just pointing out that it would be ugly ~ and the first q was written as if OP was the one pursuing the adultery angle.
Yes, I do see the difference. But I was answering Post #1, hadn't seen Post #3, and I thought at that time it might be best to present another, more peaceful option. I also googled for OP and pointed out that no-fault was an option. That was a presentation of the law, of sorts -- a beginning of a discussion on legal possibilities. I don't regret my post/s.rmet4nzkx said:But pointing out that it is ugly doesn't answer the question objectively or state the law. See the difference? AFTER that is answered we can delve into what options exist based on the facts, but aparently someone has already filed for divorce where Adultery is already admitted if interrogatories are issued. We need to focus on the questions, not debate how it might be in a perfect world where people tell the truth and don't do hurtful or unfair things.
Your second post was right on the money and also why we frequently ask questions before answering them. If you notice I also answered post #1 without seeing post #3 and provided an objective answer based on the facts presented and applicible law. While you went to the trouble to google you didn't provide an objective citation and jumped to an interpretation, not based on the facts such as they were, see? You knew Adultery was grounds for divorce and interrogatories had already been issued, filing a no fault was moot, answering the interrogatories was the issue no matter which party OP was.Silverplum said:Yes, I do see the difference. But I was answering Post #1, hadn't seen Post #3, and I thought at that time it might be best to present another, more peaceful option. I also googled for OP and pointed out that no-fault was an option. That was a presentation of the law, of sorts -- a beginning of a discussion on legal possibilities. I don't regret my post/s.