Is it better to be petitioner or respondent in a divorce? My spouse and I are getting a mutually agreed divorce, No kids, No financial settlements. My spouse doesn't care which one she wants to be. Please let me know the pros and cons.
Please let me know soon.
Thanks so much.
2007-07-25 09:43:49 · 11 answers · asked by . 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You both can use just one attorney, since all seems mutually agreed. This would save a lot of money on fees for lawyers. All you have to do is hire, both go, make up divorce agreement, let the lawyer file it, wait the time period, and it is over. Nice to see people who can agree, and go on their way.
2007-07-25 09:56:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There's no real legal advantage in your case apparently. Being the petitioner, you are the one who takes the action, and the respondent is only required to sign on the dotted line. As an earlier poster noted, the petitioner most likely will have to bear the cost of an attorney to draw up the divorce papers, but it can be done pretty cheaply. If I had the choice, I'd be the petitioner.
2007-07-25 10:05:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Respondent In Divorce
2016-12-12 03:45:05 · answer #3 · answered by cerchia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd have to disagree with the posted answers so far. For one thing if you are the respondent, you don't have to get an attorney in an uncontested divorce. Property can be divided and settled prior to divorce and then the respondent can waive their right to even show up in court.
On a moral ground, depending which church if any you belong to, it's often better not to be the one who petitions. On the other hand, if you don't petition and someone later on goes down to the courthouse of even investigates you, if you didn't petition, it is assumed by some that you did something wrong.
So to answer your question, do you care what people think? Who's paying for the lawyer, and who can take off work to go to court? Those are questions you must make a choice on; your choice will always be left for others to see the rest of your life.
2007-07-25 09:56:03 · answer #4 · answered by successfulsteps 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If you are the petitioner- you have to have an attorney ( and pay ) the respondent doesn't have to pay for anything/anyone if you both agree upon everything
2007-07-25 09:52:09 · answer #5 · answered by Mopar Muscle Gal 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
There is no advantage regardless of what position you are in. One files the other responds.
2007-07-25 09:47:24 · answer #6 · answered by Starla_C 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I recommend you not to. Take a vacation and drive across the country and stay at every po dunk motel along the way.
2007-07-25 09:53:54 · answer #7 · answered by bobanalyst 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If it's up to you, choose to be the petitioner.
2007-07-25 09:53:19 · answer #8 · answered by Kraftee 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
THEIR IS NO DIFFERENCE. THE DIFFERENCE COME IN THE AGREEMENTS. BEING THE PETITIONER OR RESPONDENT HAVE NO BARING.
2007-07-25 09:46:45 · answer #9 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I know "first to the courthouse" is always an advantage, especially if you can choose the venue.
2007-07-25 09:49:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋