interrogatory 11
Interrogatory 11:
State whether petitioner intends to claim marital misconduct on the part of respondent, and if so, state in substance and detail each instance of marital misconduct petitioner intends to claim.
Answer:
Petitioner does not allege that the division of marital property should be affected by the conduct of either of the parties, nor does petitioner make any claim for maintenance. Therefore, petitioner would suggest that the details of the parties' emotional life over twenty-odd years are not relevant to this proceeding.
If an issue is to be made in this proceeding on the question of "misconduct" on the part of one or the other party -- and petitioner here reiterates that he does not intend to make this an issue -- petitioner would state
(a) that he was subjected to almost continuous psychological and emotional duress throughout the entire course of the marriage -- literally from day one --, mostly taking the form of respondent verbally belittling petitioner and attempting to persuade him (actually, with considerable success), through constant repetition of the idea -- almost always in direct reference to the fact that petitioner was not producing enough income to satisfy her material "needs" -- that he was a selfish and unloving person, and petitioner would further state
(b) that there were instances of physical abuse -- in particular, an occasion on which respondent required petitioner to sit on a bench in the parties' family room while she struck him repeatedly with a broomstick over the course of about half an hour. The date of this occurrence would have been sometime in the mid- to late 1990s (it seems to petitioner that the parties' daughter was away at college). Respondent gave petitioner to understand that he was not to attempt to defend himself (as, for example, by grabbing the broomstick), because this would be characterized by respondent as abusive behavior on his part, i.e., a threatened attack on her, and in fact, when petitioner attempted to cover his genitals with his hand, respondent struck his hand with the broomstick (bruising his thumb and impairing its mobility for several days afterward), and then struck his genitals at least twice.
Throughout this incident, the parties' son was in his bedroom, immediately adjoining the family room, within earshot. Respondent had instructed him to remain in his room, with the door closed. Occasionally, while she was beating petitioner, she would cry out phrases like "don't hit me."
Petitioner does not allege that the physical aspect of this incident was at all typical, though it was (and is) not at all uncommon for respondent to claim that any expression by petitioner of disagreement with her was (or is) a form of emotional or psychological abuse, and on the rare occasions -- quite early in the marriage -- when the parties would engage in something resembling a mild physical struggle, respondent would shriek and fall to the floor if petitioner made any effort at all to deflect her blows, as by grabbing her wrist.
On the day that petitioner finally left the marital residence, almost three years ago, to begin a separation that both parties had agreed was necessary and almost certainly permanent, with the moving truck already in the driveway, respondent threatened to call the police to report that petitioner was stealing the few items of furniture, etc., that he was taking (and which the parties had agreed he should take) unless petitioner not only provided to her the address and telephone number of his new apartment (which he had already provided to the parties' son), but did so on his knees with an expression of abject apology. Petitioner complied with this demand in order to get out of the situation.
Petitioner does allege that this behavior on the part of respondent was entirely typical.
It is not clear what the phrase "marital misconduct" as used in the interrogatory means, but in any event (if this is what is meant) petitioner does not allege that respondent engaged in any act of sexual infidelity during the time the parties cohabited, nor does petitioner allege that respondent appropriated any marital property to herself or concealed any transactions involving marital property from petitioner. Petitioner would describe the last eight to twelve years of the parties' cohabitation as essentially sexless, and would state that for several years before that the parties had sexual relations much less frequently than three or four times a year, but petitioner does not allege that this in itself constitutes misconduct on respondent's part.
Interrogatory 12:
State whether petitioner has ever engaged in marital misconduct, and if so, state (a) the date of each instance of marital misconduct, (b) the person with whom each instance of marital misconduct was performed, (c) the method and means by which you initiated contact with each person with whom petitioner engaged in marital misconduct, and (d) the whereabouts of the parties' minor children during each instance of marital misconduct.
Answer:
Petitioner objects to this interrogatory on the grounds (a) that the phrase "marital misconduct" is not defined, and thus could conceivably include almost anything, (b) that respondent has not alleged misconduct in her counter-petition, and (c) that misconduct cannot be an issue in the division of marital property, as petitioner has left essentially all marital property in possession of respondent and is making no claim for anything resembling an equal division of marital property.
Subject to this objection, petitioner states that he does not believe that he has engaged in "marital misconduct." Petitioner acknowledges that on one occasion, sometime in the late 1990s, in the course of a verbal argument with respondent, he screamed "shut up" quite a number of times, with his face very close to hers. Thereafter, respondent claimed that petitioner had caused damage to her ear, for which she claimed that she had received medical treatment, but petitioner has seen no documentary evidence of this.
State whether petitioner intends to claim marital misconduct on the part of respondent, and if so, state in substance and detail each instance of marital misconduct petitioner intends to claim.
Answer:
Petitioner does not allege that the division of marital property should be affected by the conduct of either of the parties, nor does petitioner make any claim for maintenance. Therefore, petitioner would suggest that the details of the parties' emotional life over twenty-odd years are not relevant to this proceeding.
If an issue is to be made in this proceeding on the question of "misconduct" on the part of one or the other party -- and petitioner here reiterates that he does not intend to make this an issue -- petitioner would state
(a) that he was subjected to almost continuous psychological and emotional duress throughout the entire course of the marriage -- literally from day one --, mostly taking the form of respondent verbally belittling petitioner and attempting to persuade him (actually, with considerable success), through constant repetition of the idea -- almost always in direct reference to the fact that petitioner was not producing enough income to satisfy her material "needs" -- that he was a selfish and unloving person, and petitioner would further state
(b) that there were instances of physical abuse -- in particular, an occasion on which respondent required petitioner to sit on a bench in the parties' family room while she struck him repeatedly with a broomstick over the course of about half an hour. The date of this occurrence would have been sometime in the mid- to late 1990s (it seems to petitioner that the parties' daughter was away at college). Respondent gave petitioner to understand that he was not to attempt to defend himself (as, for example, by grabbing the broomstick), because this would be characterized by respondent as abusive behavior on his part, i.e., a threatened attack on her, and in fact, when petitioner attempted to cover his genitals with his hand, respondent struck his hand with the broomstick (bruising his thumb and impairing its mobility for several days afterward), and then struck his genitals at least twice.
Throughout this incident, the parties' son was in his bedroom, immediately adjoining the family room, within earshot. Respondent had instructed him to remain in his room, with the door closed. Occasionally, while she was beating petitioner, she would cry out phrases like "don't hit me."
Petitioner does not allege that the physical aspect of this incident was at all typical, though it was (and is) not at all uncommon for respondent to claim that any expression by petitioner of disagreement with her was (or is) a form of emotional or psychological abuse, and on the rare occasions -- quite early in the marriage -- when the parties would engage in something resembling a mild physical struggle, respondent would shriek and fall to the floor if petitioner made any effort at all to deflect her blows, as by grabbing her wrist.
On the day that petitioner finally left the marital residence, almost three years ago, to begin a separation that both parties had agreed was necessary and almost certainly permanent, with the moving truck already in the driveway, respondent threatened to call the police to report that petitioner was stealing the few items of furniture, etc., that he was taking (and which the parties had agreed he should take) unless petitioner not only provided to her the address and telephone number of his new apartment (which he had already provided to the parties' son), but did so on his knees with an expression of abject apology. Petitioner complied with this demand in order to get out of the situation.
Petitioner does allege that this behavior on the part of respondent was entirely typical.
It is not clear what the phrase "marital misconduct" as used in the interrogatory means, but in any event (if this is what is meant) petitioner does not allege that respondent engaged in any act of sexual infidelity during the time the parties cohabited, nor does petitioner allege that respondent appropriated any marital property to herself or concealed any transactions involving marital property from petitioner. Petitioner would describe the last eight to twelve years of the parties' cohabitation as essentially sexless, and would state that for several years before that the parties had sexual relations much less frequently than three or four times a year, but petitioner does not allege that this in itself constitutes misconduct on respondent's part.
Interrogatory 12:
State whether petitioner has ever engaged in marital misconduct, and if so, state (a) the date of each instance of marital misconduct, (b) the person with whom each instance of marital misconduct was performed, (c) the method and means by which you initiated contact with each person with whom petitioner engaged in marital misconduct, and (d) the whereabouts of the parties' minor children during each instance of marital misconduct.
Answer:
Petitioner objects to this interrogatory on the grounds (a) that the phrase "marital misconduct" is not defined, and thus could conceivably include almost anything, (b) that respondent has not alleged misconduct in her counter-petition, and (c) that misconduct cannot be an issue in the division of marital property, as petitioner has left essentially all marital property in possession of respondent and is making no claim for anything resembling an equal division of marital property.
Subject to this objection, petitioner states that he does not believe that he has engaged in "marital misconduct." Petitioner acknowledges that on one occasion, sometime in the late 1990s, in the course of a verbal argument with respondent, he screamed "shut up" quite a number of times, with his face very close to hers. Thereafter, respondent claimed that petitioner had caused damage to her ear, for which she claimed that she had received medical treatment, but petitioner has seen no documentary evidence of this.
posted by zach bender at 2:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home