The Law Office of Darshann M. Wienick recently celebrated a significant win in a court case that involved a major disagreement about when a couple officially separated. The controversy centered around a date that differed by 21 years, highlighting the complexities that can arise in legal matters regarding relationships.
Case:
Type of Case: Divorce, Petition for Dissolution, Date of Separation, Litigation, Community Property.
Details:
Our client was blindsided by her spouse of over 30 years when she was unexpectedly served with a petition for divorce. She later discovered that her former spouse claimed they had been separated for 21 years before the petition for divorce. This assertion about the date of separation was false and, if accepted, would exclude our client from significant community property acquired during their marriage, including pensions. Extensive litigation ensued.
Results:
The court found our client’s account more credible than her former spouse’s. The Petitioner claimed that on July 18, 2002, he informed the Respondent (our client) of his intention to end the marriage and move out. However, this did not occur. Instead, the Petitioner told his family that he would be getting an apartment closer to work and subsequently moved. The court concluded that the Petitioner did not separate from his wife 21 years ago.
The court ruled in favor of our client after we demonstrated that the Petitioner kept a key to the family home even after moving out. We also presented evidence that they celebrated their anniversary after 2002, observed numerous holidays together as a family, continued to visit each other, took family vacations, and enjoyed several romantic outings—all occurring after 2002. Throughout the 21 years of the alleged separation, the Petitioner maintained his role as our client’s spouse.
While many aspects of their marriage might appear unconventional—such as living separately and filing taxes as single individuals—these patterns indicate a more platonic and pragmatic relationship. Ultimately, the court held that “their marriage, their rules.”
