[sellmeit]

I never heard of this before but my friend filed for divorce in 89 but reconciled a few months later. Flash forward 20 yrs & she decides to divorce him again. She went back for the kids & tried to make it work. However, when she went 4 this divorce she was told that they could divide the property as if it was 1989. Said since she filed in 89 she could loose everything that they made & did since then. That they might only give her half of the house value that it was in 89 unless she can prove she lived there. She's fighting it & has to bring her kids in court to prove she just moved out. If this is true does that mean when someone who files 4 divorce better have proof that they lived there again if they reconcile should they divorce @ a later date? Better make sure they have bills in their names or charge cards? I didn't think it was a problem esp since it was 20yrs later!

[JudyKayTee]

I never heard of this before but my friend filed for divorce in 89 but reconciled a few months later. Flash forward 20 yrs & she decides to divorce him again. She went back for the kids & tried to make it work. However, when she went 4 this divorce she was told that they could divide the property as if it was 1989. Said since she filed in 89 she could loose everything that they made & did since then. That they might only give her half of the house value that it was in 89 unless she can prove she lived there. She's fighting it & has to bring her kids in court to prove she just moved out. If this is true does that mean when someone who files 4 divorce better have proof that they lived there again if they reconcile should they divorce @ a later date? Better make sure they have bills in their names or charge cards? I didn't think it was a problem esp since it was 20yrs later!!

Where the heck was this?

Was there some sort of property settlement decree or Judgment of Divorce in 1989?

This whole "open case" scenario was just posted on another thread.

[twinkiedooter]

I've never heard of this before and I've worked in Family Law for years. When you don't continue with a divorce and it's 20 years later, the "first" divorce is a closed case. There is no way that something divvied up 20years ago can still stand now. She needs to get an attorney who knows what he's doing. Just because a husband's attorney says that's the way it is, does not mean that's the way it is legally.

[sellmeit]

Happen today in Phila. PA.. In 89 the only thing she received was child support for a few months. That was it. No divorce. All she did was file. Didn't go through with it and Nothing was split. Today in court they showed the paper she filed in 89. She was shocked. Couldn't believe that was brought up since they didn't divorce. Now she has to bring in her grown children to prove she lived there 20 years after she filed! The lawyer said she could have lost the whole case since she filed back then. ( which her lawyer already knew & why she wasn't prepared shows me what kind of lawyer she is) That she could have lost her profit she made on the house since 89 and her half of her pension! Unbelieveable! What a waste of time & money. She has proof, her own kids, neighbors etc but never had any house bills in her name.

[sellmeit]

Just talked to her, she said he was served papers back then. And she has papers saying they reconciled 7 mons later! She wanted to be sure you knew he was Served Papers & that she has Reconciled papers Does that make a difference? Being served? I still think it's ridiculous whether he was or wasn't since they didn't go through with it and it was 20 yrs ago. Can't believe he even brought it up.

[JudyKayTee]

Just talked to her, she said he was served papers back then. And she has papers saying they reconciled 7 mons later !! She wanted to be sure u knew he was Served Papers & that she has Reconciled papers Does that make a difference? Being served? i still think it's rediculous wether he was or wasn't since they didn't go through with it and it was 20 yrs ago. Can't believe he even brought it up.

Please don't open a new thread - should be combined with old thread.

What kind of legal papers say they reconciled? The service I can understand; the legal paperwork that indicates a reconciliation I don't understand.

[sellmeit]

She received papers from her lawyer saying that her & her were reconciled in 89.

[cdad]

Just talked to her, she said he was served papers back then. And she has papers saying they reconciled 7 mons later !! She wanted to be sure u knew he was Served Papers & that she has Reconciled papers Does that make a difference? Being served? i still think it's rediculous wether he was or wasn't since they didn't go through with it and it was 20 yrs ago. Can't believe he even brought it up.

This is hard to follow. But I think I understand. When were the papers created that state they reconciled ? Its hard to get a timeline. If she went through with a divorce by default then she would have had to remarry and if she didn't file anything with the courts then that's the situation they are trying to put forth. i.e. they never remarried so she wouldn't be entitled to anything unless there was common law marriage in PA.

[sellmeit]

the papers were created 7 mons after they separated. They were never divorced. They reconciled. She never filed any divorce papers, just served to him. He only paid child support for 7 mons & then they reconciled. She wants a divorce now, 20 yrs later and their trying to say she never lived there when she did with her 3 children. Now that she's divorcing him, he's trying to say she never came back or lived there for the last 20 yrs.Because he only wants to split the house value in 89 instead of 2008. And also wants to decrease her pension amount of what it would be in 89.

[cdad]

the papers were created 7 mons after they seperated. They were never divorced. They reconciled. She never filed any divorce papers, just served to him. He only paid child support for 7 mons & then they reconciled. She wants a divorce now, 20 yrs later and their trying to say she never lived there when she did with her 3 children. Now that shes divorcing him, hes trying to say she never came back or lived there for the last 20 yrs.Because he only wants to split the house value in 89 instead of 2008. And also wants to decrease her pension amount of what it would be in 89.

You keep saying she never filed any divorce papers. That's untrue. Realisticly she had to file divorce papers to have him served with anything and to generate temporary orders for child support. If she has papers that the action was terminated and a reconciliation took place then she should be OK. So long as it all was filed with the courts and signed by the judge. If that didn't happen its hard to say what PA did concerning the divorce but if they entered a default judgement then it's a completely different story happeniing. That's what we need to find out is if the papers were filed and the action canceled within the court system.

[cadillac59]

This entire story makes no sense to me.

[sellmeit]

Just talked to her, she didn't think it was filed. But now thank's to you she's going to check if her reconcile paper was signed by a judge. Guess they want to be sure she's been living with him since 89, that she didn't move out. She's shocked because she didn't realize that going for a divorce in 89 would have anything to do with this divorce. Wasn't prepared for it. I appreciate all your help & so does she. I'll post what happens. It was a first for all of us. Never heard of anything like this before. Thank you

[cadillac59]

Just talked to her, she didn't think it was filed. but now thank's to you she's going to check if her reconcile paper was signed by a judge. Guess they want to be sure she's been living with him since 89, that she didn't move out. She's shocked because she didn't realize that going for a divorce in 89 would have anything to do with this divorce. Wasn't prepared for it. I appreciate all your help & so does she. I'll post what happens. It was a first for all of us. Never heard of anything like this before. Thank you

What is a "reconcile paper"? What does having filed for divorce in 1989 have to do with today? What does moving out of a house have to do with ANYTHING?

I'm a family law attorney in California and a certified family law specialist in this state and I will repeat what I said: none of this makes any sense.

[sellmeit]

Doesn't make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to any of us.! When she reconciled in 89 her lawyer sent her a paper stating they got back together. Thought that was the end of it. But her husband brought it up to his lawyer at this divorce & they want proof she's been living with him since 89. Otherwise she can only split what their assets where in 89, not what their worth in 2008. I know it's weird but it's true! She has her kids & some bills to prove she lived there so we're hoping with all that evidence & this reconcile paper they'll just throw it out. Time will tell.

[cadillac59]

All I can make of this is this:

We have a rule of law in California that says that after parties separate in anticipation of not remaining married (i.e. they commence "living separately and apart") their earnings are no longer community property and in some cases their acquisitions may not be either. Debts incurred after separation are assigned to the party who incurred them as a separate obligation. Now, in California none of this would be an issue because here a reconciliation has the effect of canceling a prior date of separation (separations are expected to be permanent).

Since this concerns another state all I can assume is that that state has a similar rule on separation (perhaps triggered by the filing of a divorce case) but not a rule that says reconciliation cancels a prior date of separation. Although the facts seem somewhat convoluted this may be what is going on.

Check with a local attorney to get a definitive answer.

[JudyKayTee]

Doesn't make sense to you? it doesn't make sense to any of us.!! When she reconciled in 89 her lawyer sent her a paper stating they got back together. Thought that was the end of it. But her husband brought it up to his lawyer at this divorce & they want proof she's been living with him since 89. Otherwise she can only split what their assets where in 89, not what their worth in 2008. I know it's weird but it's true! She has her kids & some bills to prove she lived there so we're hoping with all that evidence & this reconcile paper they'll just throw it out. Time will tell.

I have absolutely no idea what's going on here - and I'm not sure anyone else does - but it sounds to me (and I'm in NY) like the divorce was granted in 1989, they moved back in together, now (for whatever reason) someone wants another divorce/rehearing of the terms of the 1989 divorce.

As far as I know the Court doesn't care if you reconcile. The Attorneys don't care if you reconcile. The Court/Attorneys only care if you show up and/or pay your legal fees. No one sends a letter if you reconcile.

I think this is an old divorce that someone is attempting to renegotiate.

I'd love to see the various paperwork on this one.

- Always ready to be corrected but otherwise this makes no sense to me.

[sellmeit]

1. She moved out w/her children in 89
2. went to a lawyer & started a divorce & asked for child support in 89
3. He was served divorce papers & paid child support for 7 mons in 89
4. they reconciled after 7 mons in 89
5. Never got divorced in 89
6. Her lawyer sent her a paper saying that they reconciled. That they Never went through with the divorce in 89, Nothing was ever separated & no bills were made by either
7. Stayed together for 20 yrs
8. Finally had enough, kids were grown so she decided to see a lawyer for a divorce in 08
9. Started paperwork for divorce w a new lawyer
10. Went to court & his lawyer brought in papers saying she went for a divorce in 89 & said she was only entitled to the assets they had at that time(in 89). House value included
11. The court seemed to take it seriously that he was "served papers".
12 Told her she has to bring in her children & anything with her name on it to verify that she lived there for the last 20 yrs
13. Her lawyer said she could have lost everything because he was "served". ( her lawyer knew & never had her prepare anything having to do with her prior separation, why I don't know if it was that important)
14. She didn't think & neither did anyone else that something she did 20 yrs ago & cancelled would have anything to do with her getting divorced now. They never divided anything in 89, didn't make any additional bills, didn't marry & divorce anyone else, just got back together.
15. Now thanks to this site, she's going to find her reconcile paper from 89 that her lawyer at that time sent her & see if a judge signed it or anyone from the court. She only remembers that her lawyer sent it to her.
I know this is weird, we think he just doesn't want to give her half of what their assets are worth now & his pension so he's trying anything.
I don't understand why the court doesn't say that what they did 20 yrs ago doesn't have anything to do with this case now since they Didn't divorce, that no divorce was ever granted & they've been living together since then. That's why I wrote. We never heard of anything like this before. Esp since she has tons of proof that she's been living w/him since then.


7. 20 yrs later

[JudyKayTee]

Wow - did you say what State this is in? I still fail to grasp why the divorce/reconciliation in 1989 has anything to do with the property settlement today if they didn't get divorced in 1989... or for that matter what the proof that they lived together all this time has to do with anything.

This is really an interesting question - I'm looking forward to seeing how it gets resolved.

Some of these cases and what goes on are really amazing. You describe/outline it well. It just pretty flies in the face of the Law.

[sellmeit]

In PA, Philly to be exact. I'll post what I find out. Seems like a waste of court time & money to me. Thanks for getting back so soon, it's apprecitated.