My friend gets served divorce papers tomorrow

[Silurian]

Kinda curious why she'd tell you before him

It could put tetley in a bad light with his male friend if he finds out.

I would make her promise not to tell anyone that she had told me or I would say something to him.


I would assume that she thinks that tetley is more of a friend to her than too her husband; maybe she introduced her husband to tetley. But friends should not put friends in postions where they have to chose between friends. As Perfection, BvBPL and Akka try not to get involved or tetley will lose one or both friends. Tetley should make it clear to them both that he wants to stay friends with them both (if he does) and does not want to become a battle ground.

 

[schlaufuchs]

'Necessarily' would seem to leave open the possibility that it actually was a marriage, whilst indicating that whether it was or not is irrelevant.

Fair enough

I assume what Omega was instead conveying was "this wasn't a marriage as such". That seems to be closer to 'per se' than 'necessarily'.

That's not what per se means either though? per se means because of or by means of (lit. through) itself, so regardless I don't think the usage of per se there is apropos.

 

[Commodore]

So she's out of no where filing divorce without talking to him beforehand, warning him in any way, etc.?

Do you know of anything he has done to deserve that kind of treatment?

If not, then I don't understand why you would even want to keep your promise. It's pathetic if she doesn't even have the guts to tell him beforehand and in my opinion you should not have and part in this behavior.

It's smarter to spring it on someone out of nowhere. It gives the other person less time to stew about it and think of ways to "get back" at you or sabotage you in some way. It also doesn't give them time to hide or get rid of any assets to avoid having them divvied up by the lawyers.

The only time I would see it as better to inform the other party you are thinking of divorce before you are actually ready to do it, would be if you are not 100% sure you want the divorce and still cling to some hope the marriage can be salvaged. If that's not the case, then you most definitely want the element of surprise on your side.

 

[tetley]

As far as me knowing before the husband, I just attribute that to divorce. Divorce is dysfunctional. Should I know before he does? No, of course not.

I haven't heard anything today. I probably won't hear anything today or tomorrow, but I know it's happening. And it's torture.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Obviously I don't have the full picture, but it seems rather crap of her to have put you in that position. Unless... you're the "other man".

 

[Akka]

It's smarter to spring it on someone out of nowhere. It gives the other person less time to stew about it and think of ways to "get back" at you or sabotage you in some way. It also doesn't give them time to hide or get rid of any assets to avoid having them divvied up by the lawyers.

The only time I would see it as better to inform the other party you are thinking of divorce before you are actually ready to do it, would be if you are not 100% sure you want the divorce and still cling to some hope the marriage can be salvaged. If that's not the case, then you most definitely want the element of surprise on your side.

That's a pretty calculated and cold move which I find hard to reconcile with a healthy separation. Again, it's hard to judge from the outside because you don't know how it is inside, but I admit I spontaneously tend to lean on the side of the person which is basically backstabbed - at least when I can watch from a safe distance.

 

[tetley]

I'm better friends with the husband. The wife hangs out with this group of lady friends, and one of her lady friends regularly trashes her husband. Funnily, she's not the one getting divorced. The one who is serving papers, she normally doesn't say much. It's very strange. But I guess when that lady trashed her husband, at least she was talking about it; and that made her friends talk to her about it (i.e. "you shouldn't be trashing your husband like that"). Corrective action was taken. Personally, I think I'd rather be the husband getting trashed than the husband getting served.

 

[civvver]

Do they have kids? If they don't have kids it's honestly, well it still stinks, but it's not that big of a deal. Happens all the time and they'll move on and recover almost like it never happened.

 

[Commodore]

That's a pretty calculated and cold move which I find hard to reconcile with a healthy separation. Again, it's hard to judge from the outside because you don't know how it is inside, but I admit I spontaneously tend to lean on the side of the person which is basically backstabbed - at least when I can watch from a safe distance.

It is calculated and cold, but it's necessary in order to ensure you get your fair share in the separation. The fact of the matter is, the person in the marriage that did not initiate the divorce usually feels betrayed and rejected, even if they are given prior notice that it's happening and this causes them to act irrationally. That irrationality can make the divorce needlessly messy, and the only way to really mitigate the damage the other person can cause is to give them as little time to cause that damage as possible.

 

[Akka]

It is calculated and cold, but it's necessary in order to ensure you get your fair share in the separation. The fact of the matter is, the person in the marriage that did not initiate the divorce usually feels betrayed and rejected, even if they are given prior notice that it's happening and this causes them to act irrationally. That irrationality can make the divorce needlessly messy, and the only way to really mitigate the damage the other person can cause is to give them as little time to cause that damage as possible.

Technically true, but it's about mariage, divorce and relationship between two people with a history. I have a hard time reconciliating calculation and coldness and such methods with what the subject is supposed to be.

 

[Commodore]

Technically true, but it's about mariage, divorce and relationship between two people with a history. I have a hard time reconciliating calculation and coldness and such methods with what the subject is supposed to be.

The post I originally responded to though was implying that the wife serving the divorce papers was somehow wrong for doing it by surprise. I'm merely saying she's looking out for her own interests by doing so and it's unreasonable to consider her wrong for doing that. And at this point, where she has decided she doesn't love him anymore and doesn't want to be married anymore, her main goal is to make sure her own interests are protected and that the separation goes smoothly for her. She has already made the conscious choice to emotionally disconnect herself from him, so any history they have becomes largely irrelevant to her decision making regarding this matter. All that's really left between them is the "business aspect" of their marriage, and past emotional history shouldn't factor into making business decisions.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm better friends with the husband. The wife hangs out with this group of lady friends, and one of her lady friends regularly trashes her husband. Funnily, she's not the one getting divorced. The one who is serving papers, she normally doesn't say much. It's very strange. But I guess when that lady trashed her husband, at least she was talking about it; and that made her friends talk to her about it (i.e. "you shouldn't be trashing your husband like that"). Corrective action was taken. Personally, I think I'd rather be the husband getting trashed than the husband getting served.

Yeah, see that could function as a needed safety valve.

 

[Synobun]

Technically true, but it's about mariage, divorce and relationship between two people with a history. I have a hard time reconciliating calculation and coldness and such methods with what the subject is supposed to be.

You're not wrong but it unfortunately does not work that way. A large percentage of the population is vindictive on a good day, but absurdly more so when they feel betrayed or otherwise affronted. Divorce is an ugly process. You have to be cold and calculating to protect yourself since the system is designed to let you take your spouse to the cleaners if you're so inclined. You can take everything they have, tie them up in legal proceedings for years, and utterly ruin any semblance of a life for times that sometimes reach up to a decade. It's easy to say "just don't marry someone like that" but it's tough to test out that particular personality quirk before getting up onto the altar.

Divorce is rarely an amicable separation where the two people simply go their separate ways without so much as a fuss.

 

[timtofly]

She was either trying to get out of being the one to break the news, or was actually giving Tetley a heads up on what was going down, even if he seems to be more distraught than his friend may be. She was probably doing a practice run, just to test the waters. The friend may be ticked that he had no warning, but Tetley should be honest and let him know that he knew, when asked. That still puts everything on what she did, and not necessarily that Tetley let him down. She is the one who put Tetley in a position that is not enviable. For one thing, his friend should have been the one to tell him and not her. She even took that away from her ex. She may have even told her ex that she already told Tetley. Either way, there is not much one can say when another person feels wronged, other than just being there for them, and listening. Hopefully the divorce will not get ugly and cause a lot of bad fallout, that may not be necessary.

 

[IglooDame]

A friend who had gotten divorced a couple times prior to that point told me "when a guy gets divorced, it's about a year before he's really sane again". I was happily married at that time but a few years later I was unfortunately able to confirm that, myself. Tetley, stay out of the boy-girl fight, but be aware that your friend is going to need the support and/or feedback of a sane friend soon. I assume it's similar for ex-wives.

 

[Akka]

The post I originally responded to though was implying that the wife serving the divorce papers was somehow wrong for doing it by surprise. I'm merely saying she's looking out for her own interests by doing so and it's unreasonable to consider her wrong for doing that. And at this point, where she has decided she doesn't love him anymore and doesn't want to be married anymore, her main goal is to make sure her own interests are protected and that the separation goes smoothly for her. She has already made the conscious choice to emotionally disconnect herself from him, so any history they have becomes largely irrelevant to her decision making regarding this matter. All that's really left between them is the "business aspect" of their marriage, and past emotional history shouldn't factor into making business decisions.

I understand your reasoning. I just say that it's too robotic, emotionless and manipulative for me to not have a strong bias against someone who does it.

 

[tetley]

There are things more valuable than equitable division of assets (such as your sanity, for example). Surprise-attacking your spouse with a divorce certainly gives you a leg up on the money, but you pay a price with your conscience. It takes a real low-life to backstab your own spouse for the money. If you must choose between your own conscience and the money, keep your conscience. Your spouse has to make the same decision.

 

[Commodore]

There are things more valuable than equitable division of assets (such as your sanity, for example). Surprise-attacking your spouse with a divorce certainly gives you a leg up on the money, but you pay a price with your conscience. It takes a real low-life to backstab your own spouse for the money. If you must choose between your own conscience and the money, keep your conscience. Your spouse has to make the same decision.

There's a lot of loaded language in this post. I'm interested to hear how it is considered "backstabbing" to ensure you get everything you are legally entitled to? What is backstabbing though are those lowlifes who find out their spouse is divorcing them so they sell off as many assets as they can, drain the bank accounts, get rid of all the money from the sold assets, and quits their job and starts taking "under the table" work to avoid paying alimony or child support. And none of that is exaggeration either. All those things have been done by people who knew their spouse was about to leave them because their spouse tried to be the "decent person" and give them some advance warning.

You simply cannot trust people to act in a civilized and decent manner when you are about to do something to them that is going to devastate them emotionally. So, as terrible as it may sound, you really do have to get them before they get you if you want any chance of getting what is rightfully yours.

Plus, people don't just up and decide they want to divorce their spouse for no reason. Although I don't know the situation, my observation of friends and family around me that have been divorced leads me to believe the husband in this situation isn't an innocent victim. He has obviously done something to make her not even want to try to repair the marriage and just cut ties and move on with her life. And if he has put her through some sort of emotional distress, then she is most certainly entitled to seek compensation for that. And since it is impossible to "take back" any emotional distress he may have caused her, the only reasonable substitute for compensation is half of all the marital assets, plus any alimony the judge may see fit to award her.

 

[Akka]

There's a lot of loaded language in this post. I'm interested to hear how it is considered "backstabbing" to ensure you get everything you are legally entitled to?

Well, manipulating someone to make him think you still love him when you don't, keep him in the dark about a massive change going to happen in his life, and then hit him hard with it and get away... Are you really going to pretend you don't see how it can be considered backstabbing ?

In fact, you recognize yourself that you're going to devastate someone emotionnally, and that you're as such trying to do it from the shadows. That's not just "considered as", that's the very definition of backstabbing.

You simply cannot trust people to act in a civilized and decent manner when you are about to do something to them that is going to devastate them emotionally. So, as terrible as it may sound, you really do have to get them before they get you if you want any chance of getting what is rightfully yours.

That's a truly horrible way to look at mariage - and at human relationships in general. That's how you wage a war against a dangerous foe, not how you manage a change in your love life.
Unless your soon-to-be-ex-partner was truly a jerk, there is no justification to behave in such a underhanded way. In fact (unless, again, s/he's been a true jerk), you OWE her/him decency and sympathy. Years of relationship don't count for nothing.

Plus, people don't just up and decide they want to divorce their spouse for no reason. Although I don't know the situation, my observation of friends and family around me that have been divorced leads me to believe the husband in this situation isn't an innocent victim. He has obviously done something to make her not even want to try to repair the marriage and just cut ties and move on with her life.

You can never know who is at fault about what. That's why, despite my extreme contempt of backstabbing, I'm still trying not to judge (too much) and advice about not taking side in a breakup.

Conversely, that does not mean everyone is equally guilty (or guilty at all). You can't just assume the guy is necessarily wrong about something, just like you can't assume the woman is necessarily a cold-hearted female dog.

 

[Commodore]

That's a truly horrible way to look at mariage - and at human relationships in general. That's how you wage a war against a dangerous foe, not how you manage a change in your love life.
Unless your soon-to-be-ex-partner was truly a jerk, there is no justification to behave in such a underhanded way. In fact (unless, again, s/he's been a true jerk), you OWE her/him decency and sympathy. Years of relationship don't count for nothing.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. It's not a horrible way to look at marriage, it's a smart way to look at divorce. Remember, once's someone has decided they want a divorce, the relationship is no longer a marriage in their eyes. Hell, I've seen a lot of people, both men and women, start dating other people before the divorce papers have even been served. You also don't owe anyone anything in this life. Especially if this imagined emotional debt conflicts with one's own personal interests. I've said it before in other threads on other topics that I believe it is truly unreasonable to expect someone to willingly act against their own interests for the benefit of someone else.

And yeah, once someone has emotionally checked out of a marriage, years of a relationship do count for nothing. At least in the mind of the person who has checked out. The main point of a lot of this being, you can't control how another person feels and you really can't hold how someone feels against them either. If someone decides they want to cut ties with you after years of marriage and do it in a way that ensures they get what they are legally entitled to, that's not a betrayal.

It's good that you mention waging war against a dangerous foe, because I think that is a good analogy to the mindset of the person who initiates the divorce. They are at a point where they no longer see their spouse as a partner, ally, or friend. They see them as a harmful entity in their life that has to be overcome in order to get their own life back on track. They aren't necessarily wrong in thinking that way either. No matter how the divorce goes down, it is going to boil down to both parties battling over the assets to come away from the process in as best of shape as they can manage. And a simple fact of human nature, for better or worse, is that we are loathe to cooperate, or even have civil dialog, with those we view as adversaries.