Guy marries gal....once married is never unfaithful...

[atlcomedy]

but for the sake of argument let's just say he (not known to her) banged every "eccie showcase" in Dallas prior to their marriage....

what arguments will her lawyer bring?

[juan2fork]

Well he certainly did not violate his vows. Assuming he was disease free I see no valid arguments. Please note that invalid arguments are often the engine of divorce.

[Guest021824]

It happened in the past, going forward it shouldn't be a problem. Provided she doesn't get a phone call from anyone bring it up.........Then all hell may break loose.......lol

[ShysterJon]

There's a general rule in court against the wholesale attack of your opponent's character or bringing up examples of prior bad acts when such evidence has no bearing on any disputed issue at trial. For example, if the wife sought a divorce because her husband failed to hold up his end financially, the judge would probably not allow evidence he banged hookers before the marriage because such evidence has no relevance and would only have been offered to inflame the passions of the jury against the husband. Of course, my opinion may be counterintuitive to those who watch TV lawyer shows, which to lawyers have as much basis in reality as "Avatar."

[charlestudor2005]

A really outside argument: Possibly that he married her under false pretenses. Had he disclosed his previous lifestyle to her she never would have married him. That she was only attracted to him because of his seeming wholesomeness and potential fidelity and nothing could be further from the truth.

Having said that...I don't think any conduct prior to the marriage can be entered into evidence, except maybe in an annulment action. The action, not to divorce the marriage, but to assert that a legal marriage never took place due to some legal defect, might work.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

what arguments will her lawyer bring?

He'll argue that he had too much time, money and energy for his own good.

Mazo.

[Nina Rae]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

There's a general rule in court against the wholesale attack of your opponent's character or bringing up examples of prior bad acts when such evidence has no bearing on any disputed issue at trial.....

Of course, my opinion may be counterintuitive to those who watch TV lawyer shows, which to lawyers have as much basis in reality as "Avatar."

I concur. Well said.

[Ziel]

yea but if she found out about all the providers and then wanted to divorce him she could just say he was being unfaithful. Then they can bring up all those past acts.

It goes to show the character of the person they will say. If it is a real good lawyer they will make the man out to be some sex obsessed person who kept cheating on her(lie) all the time even after the marriage.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by Ziel

yea but if she found out about all the providers and then wanted to divorce him she could just say he was being unfaithful. Then they can bring up all those past acts.

That's very unlikely, in my view. The original hypothetical assumes the husband was faithful; therefore, there can't be any credible evidence he was unfaithful. If the wife merely asserts her husband cheated, without explaining the basis of her belief, that would not been enough to get character or prior bad acts evidence admitted at trial.

[live4fun]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

been offered to inflame the passions of the jury against the husband. Of course, my opinion may be counterintuitive to those who watch TV lawyer shows, which to lawyers have as much basis in reality as "Avatar."

>> lawyers are giant blue organisms not of this world? or lawyers are the corporate ones waying waste to the land? just joking... Love my lawyer....

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by ShysterJon

That's very unlikely, in my view. The original hypothetical assumes the husband was faithful; therefore, there can't be any credible evidence he was unfaithful. If the wife merely asserts her husband cheated, without explaining the basis of her belief, that would not been enough to get character or prior bad acts evidence admitted at trial.

I think this is actually going to be a state-by-state issue. Some places - NY comes to mind - will probably allow it in if there were other circumstantial evidence to support it (e.g. - he stays in a lot of hotel rooms, unexplained cash expenditures, etc.). I agree that you've got a problem if the past behavior is all you have, but if there's something else to go with it I think you can argue for admission.

IIRC, the NY courts tend to be lenient of prior bad act evidence when the act to be proved is one normally concealed (adultery, fraud, embezzlement, etc.). In some jurisdictions you'd have a shot.

The place where I think you'd definitely see it admitted is when child custody is involved. I can't imagine a court not considering a history of such behavior when looking at the kids.

Didn't Denise Richards get in the Heidi Fleiss link against Charlie Sheen?

Cheers,
Mazo.