Question of legality / courts

GoldenRivet · 07-23-10, 02:12 PM

Lets just make this a hypothetical question (no... its not happening to me) but the question has relevance to a discussion i am having with others elsewhere

----

A married couple separates, and divorce has been filed.

She moves out to a rent house on the other side of town, the husband stays put.

The woman, within days of the separation and the move meets a gentleman at a social gathering in public.

It comes to her attention that this gentleman she is introduced to is twice divorced and living single with children of his own - much in similarity to the situation she finds herself in.

the two become fast friends, and he is someone she can confide in and seek advice from - normally in a social setting among other friends and acquaintances, occasionally in the privacy of their own homes.

the husband of this woman, subpoenas the gentleman to appear in the divorce hearing for an unknown reason... however, he has claimed that he suspected them of having an affair for at least 2 years if not longer, and is claiming this infidelity is the reason for her wanting a divorce.

in fact, the gentleman and the woman have only known one another quite casually for a matter of 3 or 4 weeks.

enter the "motion to quash"...

a motion to quash seeks to nullify a subpoena based on a number of grounds.

in this particular case, the gentleman wishes to file a motion to quash based on the fact that he has only really known the woman for a matter of a few weeks, and his participation in the divorce proceedings would not only be unnecessary but would have little or no relevance to the case at hand.

those of you legal savvy... what is your opinion?

is a motion to quash appropriate?

is it appropriate to file a motion to quash based on the fact that you are subpoenaed to appear in court on behalf of (or against) someone you have only known for a few weeks?

lets hear it on this hypothetical situation

CaptainHaplo · 07-23-10, 04:55 PM

Remember that each court jurisdiction has its own rules.

However, normally a motion to quash is filed because the subpeona is flawed under constitutional grounds (right to privacy, right of free speech, unreasonable search and seizure, etc) or because the person subpeona'd cannot make the date set or lacks any information helpful to the court regarding the matter before it.

Based on what you have shared, and without knowing further details, I would say the only legitimate reason the person has is on a scheduling conflict - if one exists. There is no constitutional question since the only one that would apply is right of privacy, and using that as a reason would be tatamount to admitting an affair in the eyes of the court - even if one never occured. Free speech and U S & S don't apply at all. Being compelled to testify - because there IS an accusation of marital infidelity - means that the person subpeona'd does have material information relevant to the court - aka - whether or not an affair did or did not occur.

I would put forth a motion to quash or modify to the court - stipultating that the person can only attest to no affair occuring, but that if they are to be compelled to testify, they should be recompensed by the party issuing the subpeona to defray the costs of their presence. The court may determine that such costs be paid - and then the issuer is paying somone to sit on the seat and say nothing happend. Without proof or serious circumstancial evidence of an affair - this may make the other party back off.

Realize this is not legal advice - but a hypothetical response to your hypothetical question.

GoldenRivet · 07-23-10, 05:38 PM

no legal advice sought... just opening up to discussion.

He is likely being called to the carpet to explain his "relationship" to this woman... and the funny thing is, there has barely been any time for such a thing to formulate.

Husband suspects she has been cheating for years with this dude... which in reality, she has only known him barely a month.

the husband in this case is one of those "little man" types that constantly worries about what activities - be them real or imagined - that his wife is doing behind is back.

just seems like an awful waste of this guys time to have to go to court only to attest to the fact that he barely knows the woman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

lacks any information helpful to the court regarding the matter before it.

thats where this comes in... he knows only what she has told him in their approximately 10 encounters with one another in the past 4 weeks.

may as well subpoena me to their divorce proceedings.

edit:

im on a horse

07-23-10, 02:12 PM	#1
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	Question of legality / courts Lets just make this a hypothetical question (no... its not happening to me) but the question has relevance to a discussion i am having with others elsewhere ---- A married couple separates, and divorce has been filed. She moves out to a rent house on the other side of town, the husband stays put. The woman, within days of the separation and the move meets a gentleman at a social gathering in public. It comes to her attention that this gentleman she is introduced to is twice divorced and living single with children of his own - much in similarity to the situation she finds herself in. the two become fast friends, and he is someone she can confide in and seek advice from - normally in a social setting among other friends and acquaintances, occasionally in the privacy of their own homes. the husband of this woman, subpoenas the gentleman to appear in the divorce hearing for an unknown reason... however, he has claimed that he suspected them of having an affair for at least 2 years if not longer, and is claiming this infidelity is the reason for her wanting a divorce. in fact, the gentleman and the woman have only known one another quite casually for a matter of 3 or 4 weeks. enter the "motion to quash"... a motion to quash seeks to nullify a subpoena based on a number of grounds. in this particular case, the gentleman wishes to file a motion to quash based on the fact that he has only really known the woman for a matter of a few weeks, and his participation in the divorce proceedings would not only be unnecessary but would have little or no relevance to the case at hand. those of you legal savvy... what is your opinion? is a motion to quash appropriate? is it appropriate to file a motion to quash based on the fact that you are subpoenaed to appear in court on behalf of (or against) someone you have only known for a few weeks? lets hear it on this hypothetical situation __________________

07-23-10, 04:55 PM	#2
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Remember that each court jurisdiction has its own rules. However, normally a motion to quash is filed because the subpeona is flawed under constitutional grounds (right to privacy, right of free speech, unreasonable search and seizure, etc) or because the person subpeona'd cannot make the date set or lacks any information helpful to the court regarding the matter before it. Based on what you have shared, and without knowing further details, I would say the only legitimate reason the person has is on a scheduling conflict - if one exists. There is no constitutional question since the only one that would apply is right of privacy, and using that as a reason would be tatamount to admitting an affair in the eyes of the court - even if one never occured. Free speech and U S & S don't apply at all. Being compelled to testify - because there IS an accusation of marital infidelity - means that the person subpeona'd does have material information relevant to the court - aka - whether or not an affair did or did not occur. I would put forth a motion to quash or modify to the court - stipultating that the person can only attest to no affair occuring, but that if they are to be compelled to testify, they should be recompensed by the party issuing the subpeona to defray the costs of their presence. The court may determine that such costs be paid - and then the issuer is paying somone to sit on the seat and say nothing happend. Without proof or serious circumstancial evidence of an affair - this may make the other party back off. Realize this is not legal advice - but a hypothetical response to your hypothetical question. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo