Question about divorce

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
500
Tokens
I live in Michigan and have a female friend who is going through a divorce. They are currently seperated and she is living in their house with their 2 minor childen. The husband recently has started coming into the home when he drops off their 3 yr old from visitation and taking items. He does this while she is at work and only the 17 yrold daughter is at home. He has taken a printer and camera and just different things. She has told him to stop coming in but he hasnt. Is getting a restraining order her only recourse here and would she have a problem getting it since he is not threatining her just entering the residence when she is gone and taking things without her knowledge or permission.
 

RX Prophet
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
1,217
Tokens
brijames said:
I live in Michigan and have a female friend who is going through a divorce. They are currently seperated and she is living in their house with their 2 minor childen. The husband recently has started coming into the home when he drops off their 3 yr old from visitation and taking items. He does this while she is at work and only the 17 yrold daughter is at home. He has taken a printer and camera and just different things. She has told him to stop coming in but he hasnt. Is getting a restraining order her only recourse here and would she have a problem getting it since he is not threatining her just entering the residence when she is gone and taking things without her knowledge or permission.

I'm no attorney, but it sure sounds like that's the only recourse. If she and her husband are legally separated (some states its a formal process, here in SC it isn't) and he's essentially tresspassing a restraining order is probably the way to go.

Of course I'd strongly suggest that she find a lawyer in the area and let him deal with the situation. There may be other steps he can take to get him in line that I'm not aware of.
 

Homie Don't Play That
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,840
Tokens
"I live in Michigan and have a female friend who is going through a divorce."

OK lets cut to the chase and answer your real question: No, its not to early to start fucking her. GL
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,250
Tokens
~Falco~ said:
"I live in Michigan and have a female friend who is going through a divorce."

OK lets cut to the chase and answer your real question: No, its not to early to start fucking her. GL


:lolBIG:
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,773
Tokens
I remember reading about a case in Michigan. Something about the sodomy laws there.

Having sex with someone that is married (adultry) is considered sodomy and a person was arrested and locked up...

do a google search on it for all the details... I could be way off :)
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,773
Tokens
found it:

BRIAN DICKERSON

Adultery could mean life, court finds
That's what the law says in sex-drug case Cox appealed
January 15, 2007

BY BRIAN DICKERSON

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."

Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code.

No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court's decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship.

Murphy's opinion received little notice when it was handed down. But it has since elicited reactions ranging from disbelief to mischievous giggling in Michigan's gossipy legal community.

The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan's criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever "sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony."

Charlevoix Circuit Judge Richard Pajtas sentenced Lloyd Waltonen to up to four years in prison after he pleaded guilty to two felony counts of delivering a controlled substance. But Pajtas threw out the sexual assault charge against Waltonen, citing the cocktail waitress' testimony that she had willingly consented to the sex-for-drugs arrangement.

Charlevoix prosecuting attorney John Jarema said he decided to appeal after police discovered evidence that Waltonen may have struck drugs-for-sex deals with several other women.

Cox's office, which handled the appeal on the prosecutor's behalf, insisted that the waitress' consent was irrelevant. All that mattered, the attorney general argued in a brief demanding that the charge be reinstated, was that the pair had sex "under circumstances involving the commission of another felony" -- the delivery of the Oxycontin pills.

The Attorney General's Office got a whole lot more than it bargained for. The Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor in Waltonen's case needed only to prove that the Oxycontin delivery and the consensual sex were related. But Murphy and his colleagues went further, ruling that a first-degree CSC charge could be justified when consensual sex occurred in conjunction with any felony, not just a drug sale.

The judges said they recognized their ruling could have sweeping consequences, "considering the voluminous number of felonious acts that can be found in the penal code." Among the many crimes Michigan still recognizes as felonies, they noted pointedly, is adultery -- although the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan notes that no one has been convicted of that offense since 1971.

Some judges and lawyers suggested that the Court of Appeals' reference to prosecuting adulterers was a sly slap at Cox, noting that it was his office that pressed for the expansive definition of criminal sexual conduct the appellate judges so reluctantly embraced in their Nov. 7 ruling.

Murphy didn't return my calls Friday. But Chief Court of Appeals Judge William Whitbeck, who signed the opinion along with Murphy and Judge Michael Smolenski, said that Cox's confessed adultery never came up during their discussions of the case.

"I never thought of it, and I'm confident that it was not something Judge Murphy or Judge Smolenski had in mind," Whitbeck told me Friday. But he chuckled uncomfortably when I asked if the hypothetical described in Murphy's opinion couldn't be cited as justification for bringing first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges against the attorney general.

"Well, yeah," he said.

Cox's spokesman, Rusty Hills, bristled at the suggestion that Cox or anyone else in his circumstances could face prosecution.

"To even ask about this borders on the nutty," Hills told me in a phone interview Saturday. "Nobody connects the attorney general with this -- N-O-B-O-D-Y -- and anybody who thinks otherwise is hallucinogenic."

Hills said Sunday that Cox did not want to comment.

The Court of Appeals opinion could also be interpreted as a tweak to the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that judges must enforce statutory language adopted by the Legislature literally, whatever the consequences.

In many other states, judges may reject a literal interpretation of the law if they believe it would lead to an absurd result. But Michigan's Supreme Court majority has held that it is for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide when the absurdity threshold has been breached.

Whitbeck noted that Murphy's opinion questions whether state lawmakers really meant to authorize the prosecution of adulterers for consensual relationships.

"We encourage the Legislature to take a second look at the statutory language if they are troubled by our ruling," he wrote.

Hills declined to say whether the Attorney General's Office would press for legislative amendments to make it clear that only violent felonies involving an unwilling victim could trigger a first-degree CSC charge.

"This is so bizarre that it doesn't even merit a response," he said.

Meanwhile, Waltonen has asked the state Supreme Court for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling. He still hasn't been tried on the criminal sexual conduct charge. His attorney said a CSC conviction could add dozens of years to Waltonen's current prison sentence.

Justices will decide later this year whether to review the Court of Appeals' decision to reinstate the CSC charge.

The appeals court decision is available at http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/resources/opinions.htm. Search for Docket No. 270229.

Contact BRIAN DICKERSON at 248-351-3697 or bdickerson@freepress.com
 

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
1,893
Tokens
My question is why does she get the house? Its their house and I'm assuming he said, I'll leave. But I'm also assuming that the mortage is under their name which means it still his house too.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
4,668
Tokens
can't drag your ass to court if it's only oral sex. stay away from the bush!!!!!!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,946
Tokens
lapdance said:
can't drag your ass to court if it's only oral sex. stay away from the bush!!!!!!
Tell that to the black kid from the thread a couple weeks back who's serving 6 years for getting head at a party.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
500
Tokens
tkim11 said:
My question is why does she get the house? Its their house and I'm assuming he said, I'll leave. But I'm also assuming that the mortage is under their name which means it still his house too.


Yes the house is in both there names. He was cheating and abusive andshe told him to leave. Thats not the point here. The point is he is removing items from the home without her permission. He is coming in when she isnt there and doing it. Just want to know if this grounds enough to get a restraining order.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
4,296
Tokens
brijames said:
Yes the house is in both there names. He was cheating and abusive andshe told him to leave. Thats not the point here. The point is he is removing items from the home without her permission. He is coming in when she isnt there and doing it. Just want to know if this grounds enough to get a restraining order.

he will have to file a motion with the judge and get credit for the property that he is stealing or disposing of martial assets improperly:puppy:
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,362
Tokens
brijames said:
I live in Michigan and have a female friend who is going through a divorce. They are currently seperated and she is living in their house with their 2 minor childen. The husband recently has started coming into the home when he drops off their 3 yr old from visitation and taking items. He does this while she is at work and only the 17 yrold daughter is at home. He has taken a printer and camera and just different things. She has told him to stop coming in but he hasnt. Is getting a restraining order her only recourse here and would she have a problem getting it since he is not threatining her just entering the residence when she is gone and taking things without her knowledge or permission.

Each case is different so she's not going to get good info from a sports betting message board. Are they legally separated or just living apart? If they are legally separated then she has already spoken to an attorney. In order for her to get accurate legal advice she should give her attorney a call.

If they are just physically separated then he has all rights to go in a take things since they belong to him. If that's the case she should contact an attorney to get this stopped.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,106,899
Messages
13,439,373
Members
99,340
Latest member
fulfillworks
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com