I just left your office and spent the $250 for my consultation. I was told during my consultation that my criminal conversation suit was bogus because the woman I dated had moved out of her marital home six months before I even met her with the intent of getting a divorce after one year.
You pointed out that the law clearly states (52-13) that because she had moved out of the home six months before I met her they absolutely did not have a case because the law clearly states “No act of the defendant shall give rise to a cause of action for alienation of affection or criminal conversation that occurs after the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s spouse physically separate with the intent of either the plaintiff or plaintiff’s spouse that the physical separation remain permanent.”
I can almost guarantee you they’re going to come back and say they there was no “intent” on the physical separation remaining permanent. He’s going to try and say that he had every expectation that she was going to move back into the home and that it was only temporary even though it says right on their divorce decree that she moved out six months prior to me meeting her and they had gone a continuous year without cohabitation.
Is that something he could argue or is that not what “intent of either the plaintiff or plaintiff’s spouse that the physical separation remain permanent” means?