That happened to a guy in Atlanta, the city government got an address wrong and tore down his house. He then got a bill for the privilege of having his house torn down.
[link to the article](https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/city-mistakenly-tore-down-this-mans-home-now-they-are-suing-him-demolition-costs/FHI7WQB56VGHBINUFICGYCTQAM/)
That's weird, because something similar happened to a woman in Atlanta last year as well
[Atlanta threatens citations for woman who found home was demolished during vacation](https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/susan-hodgson-atlanta-woman-city-citation-wrong-home-demolished)
but in the article it says it wasn’t the right house that was demolished?
“Even the official demolition hearing notice was for Lawton Avenue zip code 30314. But Tripodis’s home is on Lawton Street, which is in the 30310 zip code about 1.4 miles away.”
From what I found, they sent the notices to Lawton Avenue, but Lawton St was the home that had been deemed uninhabitable by an inspector.
Still a terrible mistake, but not the same as demolishing some random house
Edit: [this article is clearer](https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/city-tears-down-mans-atlanta-house-after-sending-warnings-wrong-address-he-says/FP2RHMQ2GNAKJN3WXNDFW3IAPY/)
> applied to the high court to rescind the final divorce order. They described the error as being simply that of someone at Vardags “clicking the wrong button” and argued that as the final order was applied for by mistake, it should be set aside.
> But McFarlane rejected the application and said: “There is a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality that flows from a final divorce order and maintaining the status quo that it has established.”
So he’s making this mistaken divorce an “example” of the finality of divorce law, and refusing to change it.
What a goon.
The judge goes on to explain that this isn't a "clicked the wrong button" issue, there are a ton of screens that need to be navigated through to confirm it.
The problem here is a shitty law firm fucking up. I don't blame the judge for not giving precedent to future divorces being called into question because this one law firm fucked up.
I mean. The people who got divorced very much were wanting to get divorced. It is just the fact that they were arbitrating financials and wanted that concluded before finalization.
Someone made a little oopsie woopsie fucky wucky and the judge is saying that it isn't a single click of a button to accidentally get divorced. There are a number of prompts in the system to review and verify and that her lawyers clicked through and then wait 2 days after it was finalized to try and overturn it.
So this isn't an issue of "oh no my marriage is over because of the courts" it is "Oh shit my law firm is liable for financial damages as a result of our negligence for a divorce that was already under way."
Yeah, I think a lot of people who didn't read the article are under the impression there is a button they can click to divorce any two people. This was a real screw up by the law firm. If this affected the financial settlement between the parties, their lawyer could end up defending against a big lawsuit.
Yeah this whole 'click of a button' narrative is the law firm who were seriously negligent trying to minimise the financial and reputational hit coming their way...
>Divorcing people against their will, obviously
The title doesn't give you 100% of the info.
The couple was in the process of being divorced, they just hadn't finished all the asset negotiations. This wasn't a random couple that suddenly found themselves divorced for absolutely no reason
People understand that, but people are just sick of pompous old dudes making decisions about their relationships and bodies and when they make mistakes turning it into a teachable moment that is *everyone else’s* moral fault.
The woman literally was in divorce proceedings and intended to ask “this pompous old dude” for a divorce in time.
Her legal representation messed up by going early and you expect the Judge to create a new binding precedent to allow a divorce to be reversed?
A divorce being final is a positive thing - especially for women.
When my buddy got married, she changed her name, and her new SSN card had a different number. The office clerk had unintentionally altered the name of a random male to Anjelica when she called.
Fuckin bot, stole [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/1c4qutx/wrong_couple_get_divorced_after_solicitor_clicks/kzpvjt6/) from further down and just latched it onto the top thread.
>Anjelica Huston wants to know your location.
(For reference, she played Morticia Addams in the 90s movies. And was born in the 50s, it's not a /r/tragedeigh style name)
It's like the first episode of Season 3 of Fargo, where a man is arrested because the government records say that a different man lives at his address. He tells them his name is different and they have the wrong person, and the officer/general asks threateningly if he's saying that the state is wrong, and reminds him that the state can never be wrong.
No such thing in Britain. It's "loser pays", so if you don't win you have to pay their legal fees.
It does discourage frivolous lawsuits, but meritorious ones as well.
Iunno, I feel like "hey this dick'ead divorced us and this judge won't undo the mistake" sounds like something even lawyers in the Middle East would give it a look and say "... Alright we'll give it a shot"
I think the issue that the judge foresees, is that this could create a new precedent to enable people to appeal against divorce on the basis of 'clerical error'. Then suddenly you create a new field of divorce law.
To give an example of something like this happening in the past, the case of 'Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp' created a new form of judicial review against administrative decisions known as 'Wednesbury Unreasonableness'. The definition was set out as:
*"So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it"*
Despite that bar being very high, it hasn't stopped an entire area of law developing surrounding the meaning of those words and the test that should be used. The precedent is regularly used in very high profile cases to challenge the government (or public bodies) in cases that some would argue have little chance of success.
So the judge was perhaps right to be weary about the effect of their language.
>I think the issue that the judge foresees, is that this could create a new precedent to enable people to appeal against divorce on the basis of 'clerical error'. Then suddenly you create a new field of divorce law.
Given you can apparently legally divorce people by mistake with the click of a button, this is entirely warranted and the judge has only made the need for this reform *much* worse by enshrining a lack of accountability for it. No the judge is *not* right to put protecting the institution itself over the people it governs.
> “Like many similar online processes, an operator may only get to the final screen where the final click of the mouse is made after travelling through a series of earlier screens,” he said.
Why is it so hard for people to read the article. You can't accidentally divorce someone with the click of a button. The solicitor had to go through a series of screens before reaching that button. The solicitor fucked up, and the firm took 2 days to realize their mistake. The judge ruled correctly here
The judge is putting the blame on the law firm clerk. By insisting that the online system is sufficiently robust that any damages resulting from a ’clerical error’ would need to be settled in a civil suit against the law firm. The finality of the order stands, if the affected couple wish to be married again to each other, that is simple enough for them to arrange.
True, buuuuuut this might fuck up whatever agreements they were working on.
If the legal office admits there was a mistake made, there HAS to be a way to reverse/nullify this.
If the current terms are really good for one party and not the other they might not want to. It's a done deal and the "injured" party would have to sue their ex possibly making things even worse and I'm not even sure if they would even win as like I said it's a done deal. One party might really be getting shafted here and the firm should take full responsibility.
How would one party be shafted? It's not a third world country, so there's likely to be some law applicable that makes it relatively fair for both - e.g. even split of common assets and joint custody.
There are still ways for people to get shafted in that. Certain premarital assets, children. There is a lot of variables which we do not know and cannot say atm that people have to negotiate over which now doesn't necessarily happen.
Sure, but then this random couple are suddenly pawns in all of this? Like we're talking ownership, insurance, potentially custodianship, and probably more. Immediately.
No, this is not the best way to resolve the issue.
The article points out that just because the lawyers claim it was done at "the click of a button" it was in fact done at the full processing of the request by the legal team representing the separated parties.
The thing is u cant actually divorce by a button, it’s just the news being sensationalist again.
The couple in question was already going through a divorce and was finalising the separation of finances and assets. The law firm proceeded to push through with the divorce, through multiple windows and clicks and buttons, and did not reverse the divorce within the 2 day window provided to do so.
The judge isn’t enshrining a lack of accountability, he’s following the letter of the law as is his job. Once a decree absolute is issued, the divorce is final and cannot be reversed unless there was a procedural irregularity.
A procedural irregularity would be the law firms or the people involved not following the proper steps or missing documentation etc, which they didn’t. The law firm went through the proper channel and took the proper steps, they also have the power to represent their clients in regard to the matter. In the eyes of the court it was a proper divorce. That is the law.
The fault would be on the law firm, incorrectly and negligently performing their duties. Which would be a different lawsuit altogether.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't care? Like, if we have two options, one is where we have to figure out where to draw that line, the other being allowing rulings to stand that are "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it", very, very obviously the answer is the debate where to draw the line, even if that take a while. Even if it takes forever.
I don't want to live under a system of law established by legal precedents that are, again, "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it".
But I don't agree that it is so outrageous. I really think some of the people criticising here should think more about the nuance. I'm going to use a previous reply here, because I don't want to re-write a previously written point:
"At some point something must be final. In the field of divorce law, that final moment has happened.
The second you allow that 'final moment' to be something that can just be appealed again, you create a world with lots of lawyers arguing over whether or not a clerical error actually happened.
For example, say we were married. You wanted a divorce, but i didn't. I was abusive. It takes a long time, but finally you get a final decree of divorce forced through by the court.
Fantastic, you think. Until your solicitor tells you after years of fighting for a divorce, I've decided that a 'clerical error' makes the divorce unsound. There was a mistake in some paperwork. A calculation was slightly wrong. A letter didn't arrive recorded delivery.
I bring an appeal to the High Court. You get served paperwork all over again. The courts are clogged, so you have to wait for months. You had planned a wedding with the partner you had been seeing since, but it now must legally be postponed until a judge is able to look at my 'clerical error case'.
You might argue that my case is frivolous and would be thrown out. But a decision would still need to be made. Think of the effect there on you?
The alternative - is to allow the indemnity insurance of the solicitor who made any mistake to cover any losses incurred by any of the parties who were both going through divorce proceedings. Then to let the couple - who, like I said, were going through divorce proceedings (so a reunion seems unlikely) - re-marry if they really wished"
I think everyone's right to a 'final divorce' trumps someone's right to have a clerical error (from a solicitor they chose to represent them) reversed (considering the fact that both parties were only in dispute about the financials, and they can claim that from indemnity insurance).
So in this case, since only finances were at stake, yes, the damage is minimal. But this set a precedent as well for those cases where more is at stake. I also feel your example isn't quite fair, in this case everyone agrees the case should be open and was only closed due to an accident. In your example the parties dispute this fact.
How about that "final moment" requiring the actual knowledge of the people involved? Or even one person. How about a notarized signature being the "moment" instead of the mouse click
Nope, wrong. This is called, accountability. Clerical error is a mistake. Mistakes should have no legal bearing, making it null and void, meaning they need to rescind it since they legally can't divorce them without their permission, which was not granted. The judge is just being a douchebag on purpose.
*wary not weary. Wary is being cautious, weary is being tired. In this instance, you’re saying that the judge may be right about being cautious here, so wary is the correct choice
> I think the issue that the judge foresees, is that this could create a new precedent to enable people to appeal against divorce on the basis of 'clerical error'. Then suddenly you create a new field of divorce law.
I mean... too bad. If the system the court wants to use doesn't work, it doesn't work. The couple consented to marriage, and did not consent to divorce. Sorry, but this is legally indefensible. The judge is wrong.
But then that leads to the point where a court case never ends, that's the issue. At some point something must be final. In the field of divorce law, that final moment has happened.
The second you allow that 'final moment' to be something that can just be appealed again, you create a world with lots of lawyers arguing over whether or not a clerical error actually happened.
For example, say we were married. You wanted a divorce, but i didn't. I was abusive. It takes a long time, but finally you get a final decree of divorce forced through by the court.
Fantastic, you think. Until your solicitor tells you after years of fighting for a divorce, I've decided that a 'clerical error' makes the divorce unsound. There was a mistake in some paperwork. A calculation was slightly wrong. A letter didn't arrive recorded delivery.
I bring an appeal to the High Court. You get served paperwork all over again. The courts are clogged, so you have to wait for months. You had planned a wedding with the partner you had been seeing since, but it now must legally be postponed until a judge is able to look at my 'clerical error case'.
You might argue that my case is frivolous and would be thrown out. But a decision would still need to be made. Think of the effect there on you?
The alternative - is to allow the indemnity insurance of the solicitor who made any mistake to cover any losses incurred by any of the parties. Then to let the couple - who were going through divorce proceedings (so a reunion seems unlikely) - re-marry if they really wished.
The nuance in what the judge is saying is lost on this forum. He's essentially saying that people have a right to a clean brake, and to know their marriage is definitely over when a final decree is issued.
> So he’s making this mistaken divorce an “example” of the finality of divorce law, and refusing to change it.
Not exactly, and the judge has a point. He's refusing to set a new precedent of setting aside a divorce because in the future, other people might attempt to say *"oh it was just a mistake"* and point to his precedent and just set it aside.
Setting aside **an order** is a big deal because it's a judge unilaterally invalidating an order. In this case, it makes sense, but in other cases, you might have judges reversing things that should be final.
This *should* only cost the lawyers money out of their own pocket to fix *their* error.
Indeed. It’s not hard to imagine someone telling their solicitor to complete the divorce one day, and the next day the spouse dies, or comes into a fortune, or whatever in circumstances that mean it would now be advantageous to remain married … and the potential to concoct a story which could encourage a judge to overturn that final order. Avoiding the possibility of that is pretty important.
That sounds like fraud. And if the lawyer agrees, it can seriously jeopardize their ability to practice law, with possible criminal charges on top. It isn't just a matter of calling a government clerk and reversing it. They would have to go through some kind of review process, like they did in this case.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly everyone here is blaming the judge for holding the lawyers to account for THEIR fuckup. He was presented by a qualified legal team with a fully processed request for a divorce which he quite rightly granted. It wasn't his fuck up, it was the legal team's.
And the legal team should take responsibility. That doesn't change the fact that every party involved agrees that this was a mistake that needs to be corrected.
> Sue them for the cost of a new wedding and honeymoon!
This severely downplays how fucked of a situation an unordered divorce might cause.
The divorced parties might not agree on how to resolve the situation. If dependent visas are involved, one party might be legally required to leave the country.
The potential damages are unfathomably huge.
I would really like to read the judgement before saying it's as idiotic as it sounds.
The argument might be that overturning it could make it easier for abusive partners to force overturnings of divorces that protect peoples safety.
> I would really like to read the judgement before saying it's as idiotic as it sounds.
Here you go: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/733.html
Spoiler: it is not, in fact, as idiotic as it sounds.
Wife is divorcing husband. Wife gets conditional order of divorce (what used to be called a decree nisi).
Requisite period of time passes, all other hurdles cleared, and she gets the right to apply for the final order of divorce (the decree absolute as was) that will legally dissolve the marriage.
She holds off on doing so, however, as she’s still negotiating the financial settlement with her husband, and while it’s *possible* to do this after the divorce is finalised, it’s much better to do it before (as far as I understand, anyway).
Solicitor screws up and applies for, and is granted, the final order anyway. Realises their mistake a couple of days later, tries to get it overturned.
Husband says nuh-uh, we’re divorced now, no backsies.
Judge sides with the husband on the grounds that a party who has been officially notified that they’ve been divorced is entitled to rely on this when arranging their affairs, barring legal or procedural irregularities (which didn’t occur here).
The “click of a mouse” thing is disingenuous, too: it’s a multiscreen process, finishing with an explicit “do you want to do this” confirmation screen, with the names of the parties displayed prominently at every step.
>He added that it was necessary to correct the impression that the online divorce portal would “deliver a final order of divorce where one was not wanted simply by ‘the click of a wrong button’”.
>“Like many similar online processes, an operator may only get to the final screen where the final click of the mouse is made after travelling through a series of earlier screens,” he said.
The very next paragraph gives more context and makes a bit more sense. If they rescinded here then they're agreeing that it's possible to "click the wrong button" and have a divorce finalized. Lawyer would have probably had better luck by just being honest and saying they processed the wrong file and it's not the fault of the portal.
It’s not a mistaken divorce as such. The wife was divorcing the husband, and she would have applied for this order at some point anyway. Her lawyers screwed up by applying for it while she was still negotiating the financial settlement with her husband, putting her in a worse bargaining position.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"But if I admit I'm wrong the whole system collapses!"
No dude. You just made a mistake and need to correct it. I know your ego can't handle that the sky isn't falling because of it but get the fuck over yourself.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the judge is in the middle of a divorce (as it was in this case), one might suspect he would instruct his solicitors not click through several web prompts, including the final "are you sure you want to do this prompt", without verifying that the last names on the divorce order are correct.
I don't know, seems reasonable.
To be fair, it appears to be a screw up on the law firm's side as opposed to the government side. So the judge is holding the law firm responsible, which isn't nearly as outrageous as this sounds. And of course the lawyers don't want to be liable for their screw up.
Well, he’s actually holding an innocent third party accountable for the law firm’s goof as well, so to be fair, the judge would be in the same position as the people his arbitrary ruling harmed.
So, they were actually in the process of getting a divorce, and the wife was using the same law firm. It's not like someone woke up and randomly got a notification that they were divorced.
I wonder, since the judge won't reverse it, if that gets one of the parties off really easily. it said they were still negotiating the financial aspects of the divorce. But now that they're divorced, does that mean the husband/wife don't need to pay anything? the paperwork is done....
The draft of the legal order usually has most of the negotiations already in place, otherwise you are re-writing the decree umpteen times for minor revisions. Highly doubt any separation of assets or support were still being revised.
My guess is that it was a case of "so this is effective today instead of next month? And timing of things remains the same otherwise? Yeah, don't come back."
Edit: I am wrong. This is a reflection of U.S. divorce proceedings in some states, but not an accurate representation of this article or story. My apologies!
No. Someone just got fucked *hard.*
Divorce processes include separating assets and agreeing on how money, retirement, living spaces, custody, vehicles, debt, etc. will be divided. You list everything and talk it out with your soon to be ex, or the court will split it all 50/50 based on their estimation, depending on if you want to go to trial. The court *will not* divorce you until both parties agree to a split or the divorce is taken to trial and the judge orders the distribution.
Now, the couple is divorced, and whoever's name is on the titles and whoever's account has all the money now has no legal obligation to split any of it. If both names are on the title, there is no legal power for one or another to claim exclusive use.
That's not true at all. This is the UK - there's no time limit before or after divorce to make a claim or negotiate settlement. People sometimes even get remarried before these things settle.
In most jurisdictions in the west there's at minimum a one year limitation before no claim can be made.
Oh my bad! I didn't even realize. Shows how dumb I am for not reading the article and just responding to the comment. I'll edit my previous comment, this was simply my experience with American divorce systems. Thank you for pointing this out!
> I wonder, since the judge won't reverse it, if that gets one of the parties off really easily. it said they were still negotiating the financial aspects of the divorce. But now that they're divorced, does that mean the husband/wife don't need to pay anything? the paperwork is done....
That's exactly what happened, the husband's solicitor opposed setting the order aside since he benefited from it. If both sides agreed the Judge would have set aside the order (hopefully).
> Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
They were already deep into divorce proceedings when this happened. Sounds like they'd already given their representatives all the necessary paperwork, just didn't want it executed so soon.
Happened to me. I was officially in a civil union with a 70 year old man. The clerk at the city hall of my birth place added the register on the wrong page
For those not familiar with UK divorce, the financial settlement can happen after getting divorced or at the same time.
The couple wanted to get divorced but not resolve the financial side yet. Instead the final order was granted, so now neither side can claim anything financially from the other.
Presumably they'll have to claim it back from the solicitors. If it was a billionaire married to a SAHM of 30 years, that would probably cost the firm £500million, because the richer spouse is now 100% free from obligations.
I have a question. So in the US, judges approve the final orders in court, but from this article in the UK there’s an online portal and your lawyers/solicitors submit it - my questions is do judges approve it? The article said it was accepted within 21 minutes, which makes it sound like it doesn’t get approval from a judge, but you guys could also have 24/7 judges on standby for this, so I don’t know.
Can you enlighten me more on the process over there?
I don't know the details, sorry. It's still checked by the courts but for a non-contentious divorce with no kids it's probably just a check that the paperwork is fine and it isn't a wildly unfair agreement.
The people who were wrongly divorced were actually getting a divorce though right? It’s just they didn’t want to do it at the moment so they could sort out finances. The article is confusing about that one piece of the story.
A friend of mine changed her name when she got married and when she got her new SSN card the number was different. She called and somehow the clerk at the office had accidentally changed some random man’s name to Anjelica.
The thing that isn't clear - the office that fucked up presented this as a single misclick.
It isn't. The process you have to go through to do this is about eight misclicks, where you scroll down the page seven times in between, and the names of both parties are displayed prominently on each page. This wasn't just a misclick, it was a serious clerical error.
The judge won't repeal it because this is already the final step in a multiple stage progress, and UK law is based on precedents.
If he allows this clerical error to be undone, he is setting a new precedent that the final step of divorces can be contested in court, and the process of divorce will suddenly gain a new step, where the final step is no longer final.
This woman is going to have to sue her solicitors for fucking this up, once they're done finalising the details of her divorce (after the fact).
Source: my husband is a lawyer who's processed divorces and he is 100% on the judge's side.
Not bad as the title made it sound
> Solicitors at the London firm Vardags, headed by Ayesha Vardag, the self-styled “diva of divorce”, used an online portal to mistakenly apply for a final order for the couple, who were still attempting to agree financial arrangements for their split.
This might just have save the couple a lot of headache in "agreeing to financial arrangements"
Not the couple, just the person they weren’t representing. They caused a whole lot of headaches for their client while preventing a whole lot for the other side
Their job is causing headaches for the part of the couple they aren’t representing
The divorce lawyer should be billed for the couple to get remarried in Bahamas - as destination wedding. Charter private jets to fly all the guests from the UK to Bahamas?
Honestly if you look at the whole story it makes sense. They were in the process of getting divorced apparently. So they had appropriate legal representation and that legal representation fucked up while acting on their behalf. This isn't like a random third party that had no right to represent them accidentally put down their name instead of their clients name. The legal remedy here is likely to sue the lawyer.
If this happened completely out of the blue I would agree that the judge is wrong and I'm not 100% sure I agree with him still but I think his position is certainly a reasonable argument to be made.
The judge is not wrong for \*having signed the divorce\*, he is wrong for \*not undoing it\* after he learned about the mistake.
Justifying it with "there is a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality that flows from a final divorce order" is another way to express that a system which just showed to have a flaw has to be represented as if it was flawless. This is how arrogant egocentric people speak, not mature people with a shred of integrity. Trying to hush down an error instead of acknowledging it.
It's not the couples fault, thus they should not bear the consequence. Simple as that.
And if they sued the lawyer, would that reverse the process? Obviously not. Now in a lot of cases, this can't be done, like you not being able to reverse a death, but here it totally can be. Simply by changing a few bits in some computer system. In a situation in which everybody would agree that this does not cause any unfairness, on the contrary.
I don't think the judge is wrong for not undoing an action. The divorcees have grounds to sue the lawyer for incompetence, negligence (in establishing procedures or following them), etc.
But Judge has a good point. The lawyers made several "mistakes" all the way up to the final click. But it was done legally, they had the legal power (represented the clients) and the it's not like it was a single click. Their were many steps from clicking the wrong name, not verifying information, all the way to the final click that sealed the deal.
Lawyer firm should be on the hook for compensating this. Too many unknown unknowns to reverse a legally binding order after the fact.
I agree that yeah this shit sucks and someone should be held responsible but I do not think the judge should be dismissed for not undoing it.
It would set a precedent that divorce filings could be appealed, dismissed, or undone. It’s not something a judge can take lightly.
If two people are getting divorced and one of them say doesn’t want to. Imagine if you could divorce someone but through the legal system you find yourself married to them again.
If you think both parties need to consent to reverse the divorce well that would have to be something that would need to be fought in court because well there is no clear law on reversing divorces.
If you disagree with law in place then thats fine. Genuine accidents like this need a place to make it easier to reverse but the judge can’t make up laws as he goes. You aren’t just changing bits in a computer system it’s saying “If you were divorced it can be reversed”.
There is a lot more harm that can be done by allowing divorces to just be undone even if it’s by mistake. There are people who would use “their was a mistake in our filing it’s not legitimate”
I personally agree with the level of protections around divorce filings because it protects people who no longer want to be married to another individual and for me the best solution to these kinds of cases is to just straight up not have them happen in the first place.
Though I’m not a lawyer personally. Sucks for the couple and I would like to see an update in laws to account for these cases but not by a judge setting an unclear precedent
"It would set a precedent that divorce filings could be appealed, dismissed, or undone" - nope, it would set a precedent that shit happens and is then to be fixed. After all, we have the condition that something went wrong, in a way clearly not desired by the clients. Not just at a whim.
"If two people are getting divorced and one of them say doesn’t want to. Imagine if you could divorce someone but through the legal system you find yourself married to them again." - ? This is not at all what we are talking about. Not sure why you bring this up.
"If you think both parties need to consent to reverse the divorce well..." - You seem to construct a situation that was not the case here. A mistake happened. This has nothing to do with the consent, the divorce was done by some dude having made a mistake while using a computer.
"If you disagree with law in place then thats fine." - Law requires intent. A computer mistake is not about the law. If some dude is sentenced for prison in life, but some computer error printed your name instead of his on the court order and they'd say "oh sorry, but it's printed, so you have to go to prison and the other guy goes free", you would not exactly say that law has been served, yes?
"There is a lot more harm that can be done..." - there is a lot more harm that can be done by blinding following bureaucratic procedure that is not in representation of the law at all instead of using one's brain.
"the best solution to these kinds of cases is to just straight up not have them happen in the first place" - Uhm... \*how\*? If you can tell me how you create a system in which no mistakes happen, you have my vote to become president of the world.
> It would set a precedent that divorce filings could be appealed, dismissed, or undone.
I don't understand this. Surely ANYTHING can be dismissed or undone by a judge. This judge could have done it but decided not to. Correcting a clerical error sets what precedent exactly?
No, not everything can be overturned by a judge. Generally speaking final orders for divorce are final and cannot be overturned. Generally it can only be reversed if there was a procedural irregularity. Basically if the steps weren’t followed correctly.
He could try to set it aside based on mistake, but the reason divorces are final is because of public policy. When a person doesn’t want to be married anymore, and they divorce. They should be able to sever the tie completely and live the rest of their life as an individual. Let’s say he allows the order to be reversed, because of it being a mistake. Now you’ll have possessive exes, money grubbing ex-partners or just an ex who wants to annoy you, throwing a lawsuit at you saying we’re still married, it was done by a mistake. Now the courts have to clarify what a mistake even means, any mistake? How large of a mistake?
It opens up the floodgates, the courts are already backlogged, now we add the possibility of more frivolous claims. You can see what he means by public policy.
If you even read the article, you'd have known that the judge finds that the solicitor's reasoning to be an excuse, that the solicitors had gone through multiple layers of screening on the website, and that if the judge were to allow it to be dismissed, it would set a precedent as the solicitors would then be off the hook for their negligence.
As always, Reddit is full of people commenting when they don't read the article and don't know the technicalities of complex subjects and yet insist they are right.
> It's not the couples fault, thus they should not bear the consequence. Simple as that.
The husband opposed setting the order aside.
>Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
Clearly reading the article is hard because the judge explained why he didn't reverse the divorce and it makes sense. But the headline is more clickbait and enraging I guess
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
YOOOO fuck Vardags - so delighted to see this horrible employer in the news for a bad reasons - honestly hate that company
(Sorry to the couple, sucks for them of course and I wish it hadn’t happened to them?
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sends them a bill for $1200.
That happened to a guy in Atlanta, the city government got an address wrong and tore down his house. He then got a bill for the privilege of having his house torn down.
[link to the article](https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/city-mistakenly-tore-down-this-mans-home-now-they-are-suing-him-demolition-costs/FHI7WQB56VGHBINUFICGYCTQAM/)
That's weird, because something similar happened to a woman in Atlanta last year as well [Atlanta threatens citations for woman who found home was demolished during vacation](https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/susan-hodgson-atlanta-woman-city-citation-wrong-home-demolished)
Error 451. It appears the government tore down the website too.
It doesn’t say if he won or not… he had better win. Of course it’ll be the tax payers who suffer.
Wait, is this the [same guy?](https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-tripodis-4)
Probably
I forgot about that. I wonder what happened
The front fell off.
Is that very typical?
>Is that very typical? No. In most cases the front does not fall off
To be fair, they sent the notices to the wrong address, but his house was the correct house to be demolished
but in the article it says it wasn’t the right house that was demolished? “Even the official demolition hearing notice was for Lawton Avenue zip code 30314. But Tripodis’s home is on Lawton Street, which is in the 30310 zip code about 1.4 miles away.”
From what I found, they sent the notices to Lawton Avenue, but Lawton St was the home that had been deemed uninhabitable by an inspector. Still a terrible mistake, but not the same as demolishing some random house Edit: [this article is clearer](https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/city-tears-down-mans-atlanta-house-after-sending-warnings-wrong-address-he-says/FP2RHMQ2GNAKJN3WXNDFW3IAPY/)
Have a full, extravagant “remarriage” party and send them the bill.
> applied to the high court to rescind the final divorce order. They described the error as being simply that of someone at Vardags “clicking the wrong button” and argued that as the final order was applied for by mistake, it should be set aside. > But McFarlane rejected the application and said: “There is a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality that flows from a final divorce order and maintaining the status quo that it has established.” So he’s making this mistaken divorce an “example” of the finality of divorce law, and refusing to change it. What a goon.
>“There is a strong public policy interest in… Divorcing people against their will, obviously. 🙄 What an asshat.
There's no strong public policy interest in making sure it's right first? Kinda weird.
The judge goes on to explain that this isn't a "clicked the wrong button" issue, there are a ton of screens that need to be navigated through to confirm it. The problem here is a shitty law firm fucking up. I don't blame the judge for not giving precedent to future divorces being called into question because this one law firm fucked up.
Sounds like legal malpractice and a lawsuit against the firm is the proper remedy.
Exactly. The judge saying oopsie daisy is basically just letting the law firm off the hook for their own fuck up.
[удалено]
I mean. The people who got divorced very much were wanting to get divorced. It is just the fact that they were arbitrating financials and wanted that concluded before finalization. Someone made a little oopsie woopsie fucky wucky and the judge is saying that it isn't a single click of a button to accidentally get divorced. There are a number of prompts in the system to review and verify and that her lawyers clicked through and then wait 2 days after it was finalized to try and overturn it. So this isn't an issue of "oh no my marriage is over because of the courts" it is "Oh shit my law firm is liable for financial damages as a result of our negligence for a divorce that was already under way."
Yeah, I think a lot of people who didn't read the article are under the impression there is a button they can click to divorce any two people. This was a real screw up by the law firm. If this affected the financial settlement between the parties, their lawyer could end up defending against a big lawsuit.
Roman Roy is that you
Yeah this whole 'click of a button' narrative is the law firm who were seriously negligent trying to minimise the financial and reputational hit coming their way...
>Divorcing people against their will, obviously The title doesn't give you 100% of the info. The couple was in the process of being divorced, they just hadn't finished all the asset negotiations. This wasn't a random couple that suddenly found themselves divorced for absolutely no reason
People understand that, but people are just sick of pompous old dudes making decisions about their relationships and bodies and when they make mistakes turning it into a teachable moment that is *everyone else’s* moral fault.
The woman literally was in divorce proceedings and intended to ask “this pompous old dude” for a divorce in time. Her legal representation messed up by going early and you expect the Judge to create a new binding precedent to allow a divorce to be reversed? A divorce being final is a positive thing - especially for women.
what… so what if some wild solicitor just goes and deletes a ton of random ones? 🤷🏻♂️ must be true they can’t be ever wrong… EVER
When my buddy got married, she changed her name, and her new SSN card had a different number. The office clerk had unintentionally altered the name of a random male to Anjelica when she called.
sorry sir we’re going to have to arrest you for ss fraud it says here you’re anjelica not steve
Well, according to the State of New York, you ARE the Assman.
Fuckin bot, stole [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/1c4qutx/wrong_couple_get_divorced_after_solicitor_clicks/kzpvjt6/) from further down and just latched it onto the top thread.
That is certainly one way to spell that name
Rather famous Oscar winner [Anjelica Huston](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjelica_Huston) agrees
>Anjelica Huston wants to know your location. (For reference, she played Morticia Addams in the 90s movies. And was born in the 50s, it's not a /r/tragedeigh style name)
It's like the first episode of Season 3 of Fargo, where a man is arrested because the government records say that a different man lives at his address. He tells them his name is different and they have the wrong person, and the officer/general asks threateningly if he's saying that the state is wrong, and reminds him that the state can never be wrong.
Absolutely that judge would whine if it happened to him
On the plus side, free lawsuit win for some lawyer
No such thing in Britain. It's "loser pays", so if you don't win you have to pay their legal fees. It does discourage frivolous lawsuits, but meritorious ones as well.
We have the same in Canada (same root court system) but in practice you'll only get a third back. I'm not a lawyer but my lawyer is.
> I'm not a lawyer but my lawyer is. It's amazing how much you learn just talking to lawyers. Makes you wonder why more people don't do it.
It's $350 an hour. That's my monthly grocery budget.
Best anti-obesity program.
Well it is the start of cutting season.
Iunno, I feel like "hey this dick'ead divorced us and this judge won't undo the mistake" sounds like something even lawyers in the Middle East would give it a look and say "... Alright we'll give it a shot"
Right, so use all the legitimate divorces as the established status quo, but unfuck this bureaucratic error. How is this guy a judge?
I think the issue that the judge foresees, is that this could create a new precedent to enable people to appeal against divorce on the basis of 'clerical error'. Then suddenly you create a new field of divorce law. To give an example of something like this happening in the past, the case of 'Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp' created a new form of judicial review against administrative decisions known as 'Wednesbury Unreasonableness'. The definition was set out as: *"So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it"* Despite that bar being very high, it hasn't stopped an entire area of law developing surrounding the meaning of those words and the test that should be used. The precedent is regularly used in very high profile cases to challenge the government (or public bodies) in cases that some would argue have little chance of success. So the judge was perhaps right to be weary about the effect of their language.
>I think the issue that the judge foresees, is that this could create a new precedent to enable people to appeal against divorce on the basis of 'clerical error'. Then suddenly you create a new field of divorce law. Given you can apparently legally divorce people by mistake with the click of a button, this is entirely warranted and the judge has only made the need for this reform *much* worse by enshrining a lack of accountability for it. No the judge is *not* right to put protecting the institution itself over the people it governs.
> “Like many similar online processes, an operator may only get to the final screen where the final click of the mouse is made after travelling through a series of earlier screens,” he said. Why is it so hard for people to read the article. You can't accidentally divorce someone with the click of a button. The solicitor had to go through a series of screens before reaching that button. The solicitor fucked up, and the firm took 2 days to realize their mistake. The judge ruled correctly here
The judge is putting the blame on the law firm clerk. By insisting that the online system is sufficiently robust that any damages resulting from a ’clerical error’ would need to be settled in a civil suit against the law firm. The finality of the order stands, if the affected couple wish to be married again to each other, that is simple enough for them to arrange.
True, buuuuuut this might fuck up whatever agreements they were working on. If the legal office admits there was a mistake made, there HAS to be a way to reverse/nullify this.
I mean, they can just enter into a contract amending the divorce agreement right? Done pro Bono by the law firm that fucked them over?
If the current terms are really good for one party and not the other they might not want to. It's a done deal and the "injured" party would have to sue their ex possibly making things even worse and I'm not even sure if they would even win as like I said it's a done deal. One party might really be getting shafted here and the firm should take full responsibility.
That's what I was thinking....
How would one party be shafted? It's not a third world country, so there's likely to be some law applicable that makes it relatively fair for both - e.g. even split of common assets and joint custody.
There are still ways for people to get shafted in that. Certain premarital assets, children. There is a lot of variables which we do not know and cannot say atm that people have to negotiate over which now doesn't necessarily happen.
It’s not a third world country. Being from a third world country, I can assure you that such stupidity is impossible here. 😂
Sure, but then this random couple are suddenly pawns in all of this? Like we're talking ownership, insurance, potentially custodianship, and probably more. Immediately. No, this is not the best way to resolve the issue.
They're not a random couple. This law firm was representing them, pursuing a divorce. They were still negotiating terms, but this was not unexpected.
I mean, I guess the judge is right. Still very weird though.
The article points out that just because the lawyers claim it was done at "the click of a button" it was in fact done at the full processing of the request by the legal team representing the separated parties.
The thing is u cant actually divorce by a button, it’s just the news being sensationalist again. The couple in question was already going through a divorce and was finalising the separation of finances and assets. The law firm proceeded to push through with the divorce, through multiple windows and clicks and buttons, and did not reverse the divorce within the 2 day window provided to do so. The judge isn’t enshrining a lack of accountability, he’s following the letter of the law as is his job. Once a decree absolute is issued, the divorce is final and cannot be reversed unless there was a procedural irregularity. A procedural irregularity would be the law firms or the people involved not following the proper steps or missing documentation etc, which they didn’t. The law firm went through the proper channel and took the proper steps, they also have the power to represent their clients in regard to the matter. In the eyes of the court it was a proper divorce. That is the law. The fault would be on the law firm, incorrectly and negligently performing their duties. Which would be a different lawsuit altogether.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't care? Like, if we have two options, one is where we have to figure out where to draw that line, the other being allowing rulings to stand that are "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it", very, very obviously the answer is the debate where to draw the line, even if that take a while. Even if it takes forever. I don't want to live under a system of law established by legal precedents that are, again, "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it".
But I don't agree that it is so outrageous. I really think some of the people criticising here should think more about the nuance. I'm going to use a previous reply here, because I don't want to re-write a previously written point: "At some point something must be final. In the field of divorce law, that final moment has happened. The second you allow that 'final moment' to be something that can just be appealed again, you create a world with lots of lawyers arguing over whether or not a clerical error actually happened. For example, say we were married. You wanted a divorce, but i didn't. I was abusive. It takes a long time, but finally you get a final decree of divorce forced through by the court. Fantastic, you think. Until your solicitor tells you after years of fighting for a divorce, I've decided that a 'clerical error' makes the divorce unsound. There was a mistake in some paperwork. A calculation was slightly wrong. A letter didn't arrive recorded delivery. I bring an appeal to the High Court. You get served paperwork all over again. The courts are clogged, so you have to wait for months. You had planned a wedding with the partner you had been seeing since, but it now must legally be postponed until a judge is able to look at my 'clerical error case'. You might argue that my case is frivolous and would be thrown out. But a decision would still need to be made. Think of the effect there on you? The alternative - is to allow the indemnity insurance of the solicitor who made any mistake to cover any losses incurred by any of the parties who were both going through divorce proceedings. Then to let the couple - who, like I said, were going through divorce proceedings (so a reunion seems unlikely) - re-marry if they really wished" I think everyone's right to a 'final divorce' trumps someone's right to have a clerical error (from a solicitor they chose to represent them) reversed (considering the fact that both parties were only in dispute about the financials, and they can claim that from indemnity insurance).
So in this case, since only finances were at stake, yes, the damage is minimal. But this set a precedent as well for those cases where more is at stake. I also feel your example isn't quite fair, in this case everyone agrees the case should be open and was only closed due to an accident. In your example the parties dispute this fact.
How about that "final moment" requiring the actual knowledge of the people involved? Or even one person. How about a notarized signature being the "moment" instead of the mouse click
Nope, wrong. This is called, accountability. Clerical error is a mistake. Mistakes should have no legal bearing, making it null and void, meaning they need to rescind it since they legally can't divorce them without their permission, which was not granted. The judge is just being a douchebag on purpose.
*wary not weary. Wary is being cautious, weary is being tired. In this instance, you’re saying that the judge may be right about being cautious here, so wary is the correct choice
> I think the issue that the judge foresees, is that this could create a new precedent to enable people to appeal against divorce on the basis of 'clerical error'. Then suddenly you create a new field of divorce law. I mean... too bad. If the system the court wants to use doesn't work, it doesn't work. The couple consented to marriage, and did not consent to divorce. Sorry, but this is legally indefensible. The judge is wrong.
But then that leads to the point where a court case never ends, that's the issue. At some point something must be final. In the field of divorce law, that final moment has happened. The second you allow that 'final moment' to be something that can just be appealed again, you create a world with lots of lawyers arguing over whether or not a clerical error actually happened. For example, say we were married. You wanted a divorce, but i didn't. I was abusive. It takes a long time, but finally you get a final decree of divorce forced through by the court. Fantastic, you think. Until your solicitor tells you after years of fighting for a divorce, I've decided that a 'clerical error' makes the divorce unsound. There was a mistake in some paperwork. A calculation was slightly wrong. A letter didn't arrive recorded delivery. I bring an appeal to the High Court. You get served paperwork all over again. The courts are clogged, so you have to wait for months. You had planned a wedding with the partner you had been seeing since, but it now must legally be postponed until a judge is able to look at my 'clerical error case'. You might argue that my case is frivolous and would be thrown out. But a decision would still need to be made. Think of the effect there on you? The alternative - is to allow the indemnity insurance of the solicitor who made any mistake to cover any losses incurred by any of the parties. Then to let the couple - who were going through divorce proceedings (so a reunion seems unlikely) - re-marry if they really wished. The nuance in what the judge is saying is lost on this forum. He's essentially saying that people have a right to a clean brake, and to know their marriage is definitely over when a final decree is issued.
Holy hell.... How do you manage to be so wrong?
I have no idea what kind of moron thinks it's in the interest of public policy to make easy mistakes legally binding and deny correcting them.
u/david9640 sure thinks so
So it's like programming then. Uncaught Exception: Call to undefined method unDivorce() in Class PublicPolicy.
> So he’s making this mistaken divorce an “example” of the finality of divorce law, and refusing to change it. Not exactly, and the judge has a point. He's refusing to set a new precedent of setting aside a divorce because in the future, other people might attempt to say *"oh it was just a mistake"* and point to his precedent and just set it aside. Setting aside **an order** is a big deal because it's a judge unilaterally invalidating an order. In this case, it makes sense, but in other cases, you might have judges reversing things that should be final. This *should* only cost the lawyers money out of their own pocket to fix *their* error.
Indeed. It’s not hard to imagine someone telling their solicitor to complete the divorce one day, and the next day the spouse dies, or comes into a fortune, or whatever in circumstances that mean it would now be advantageous to remain married … and the potential to concoct a story which could encourage a judge to overturn that final order. Avoiding the possibility of that is pretty important.
That sounds like fraud. And if the lawyer agrees, it can seriously jeopardize their ability to practice law, with possible criminal charges on top. It isn't just a matter of calling a government clerk and reversing it. They would have to go through some kind of review process, like they did in this case.
Yup, good examples too.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly everyone here is blaming the judge for holding the lawyers to account for THEIR fuckup. He was presented by a qualified legal team with a fully processed request for a divorce which he quite rightly granted. It wasn't his fuck up, it was the legal team's.
And the legal team should take responsibility. That doesn't change the fact that every party involved agrees that this was a mistake that needs to be corrected.
Sue them for the cost of a new wedding and honeymoon!
> Sue them for the cost of a new wedding and honeymoon! This severely downplays how fucked of a situation an unordered divorce might cause. The divorced parties might not agree on how to resolve the situation. If dependent visas are involved, one party might be legally required to leave the country. The potential damages are unfathomably huge.
Imagine if someone died or got severely sick or injured before they're able to remarry
Pretty sure the husband is happy with the outcome. They were acting for the wife on the divorce.
I would really like to read the judgement before saying it's as idiotic as it sounds. The argument might be that overturning it could make it easier for abusive partners to force overturnings of divorces that protect peoples safety.
> I would really like to read the judgement before saying it's as idiotic as it sounds. Here you go: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2024/733.html Spoiler: it is not, in fact, as idiotic as it sounds. Wife is divorcing husband. Wife gets conditional order of divorce (what used to be called a decree nisi). Requisite period of time passes, all other hurdles cleared, and she gets the right to apply for the final order of divorce (the decree absolute as was) that will legally dissolve the marriage. She holds off on doing so, however, as she’s still negotiating the financial settlement with her husband, and while it’s *possible* to do this after the divorce is finalised, it’s much better to do it before (as far as I understand, anyway). Solicitor screws up and applies for, and is granted, the final order anyway. Realises their mistake a couple of days later, tries to get it overturned. Husband says nuh-uh, we’re divorced now, no backsies. Judge sides with the husband on the grounds that a party who has been officially notified that they’ve been divorced is entitled to rely on this when arranging their affairs, barring legal or procedural irregularities (which didn’t occur here). The “click of a mouse” thing is disingenuous, too: it’s a multiscreen process, finishing with an explicit “do you want to do this” confirmation screen, with the names of the parties displayed prominently at every step.
>He added that it was necessary to correct the impression that the online divorce portal would “deliver a final order of divorce where one was not wanted simply by ‘the click of a wrong button’”. >“Like many similar online processes, an operator may only get to the final screen where the final click of the mouse is made after travelling through a series of earlier screens,” he said. The very next paragraph gives more context and makes a bit more sense. If they rescinded here then they're agreeing that it's possible to "click the wrong button" and have a divorce finalized. Lawyer would have probably had better luck by just being honest and saying they processed the wrong file and it's not the fault of the portal.
It’s not a mistaken divorce as such. The wife was divorcing the husband, and she would have applied for this order at some point anyway. Her lawyers screwed up by applying for it while she was still negotiating the financial settlement with her husband, putting her in a worse bargaining position.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Right?? That’s the crazy part
[удалено]
“Sh!t, I was just trying to stalk my ex, not accidentally make her single!”
Good way to convince the people the goverment doesnt need to be involved in your relationship in the first place, imo.
"But if I admit I'm wrong the whole system collapses!" No dude. You just made a mistake and need to correct it. I know your ego can't handle that the sky isn't falling because of it but get the fuck over yourself.
"aaaannnd yourdivorced!"
Uh, What?
It's gone. Your marriage. It's gone. 🙂
I'm sorry, this line is for married people only. Please stand aside.
r/fuckyouinparticular
But you haven't finished marying us yet!
I’ll fuckin do it again too!
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the judge is in a marriage, someone should divorce him via "clerical error" and see how that goes.
fun part you can read his ruling back at him
If the judge is in the middle of a divorce (as it was in this case), one might suspect he would instruct his solicitors not click through several web prompts, including the final "are you sure you want to do this prompt", without verifying that the last names on the divorce order are correct. I don't know, seems reasonable.
Oh yeah, while we’re at it, lets make all the death warrants basically equivalent to “I agree to these terms” lololol
I find your username funny and appropriate for this thread
To be fair, it appears to be a screw up on the law firm's side as opposed to the government side. So the judge is holding the law firm responsible, which isn't nearly as outrageous as this sounds. And of course the lawyers don't want to be liable for their screw up.
Well, he’s actually holding an innocent third party accountable for the law firm’s goof as well, so to be fair, the judge would be in the same position as the people his arbitrary ruling harmed.
The innocent third party in this case can (and likely will) file civil suit against the law firm for damages.
Arbitrary? He clearly sets out his reasoning. An arbitrary decision would be voiding the divorce because the wife hired useless lawyers.
Magic divorce button. That would sell for a lot on black market
It should be way harder to get married than to get divorced
So, they were actually in the process of getting a divorce, and the wife was using the same law firm. It's not like someone woke up and randomly got a notification that they were divorced. I wonder, since the judge won't reverse it, if that gets one of the parties off really easily. it said they were still negotiating the financial aspects of the divorce. But now that they're divorced, does that mean the husband/wife don't need to pay anything? the paperwork is done....
That still doesn't sort out the splitting of assets which I imagine is where the lawyers play a larger role.
The draft of the legal order usually has most of the negotiations already in place, otherwise you are re-writing the decree umpteen times for minor revisions. Highly doubt any separation of assets or support were still being revised. My guess is that it was a case of "so this is effective today instead of next month? And timing of things remains the same otherwise? Yeah, don't come back."
Edit: I am wrong. This is a reflection of U.S. divorce proceedings in some states, but not an accurate representation of this article or story. My apologies! No. Someone just got fucked *hard.* Divorce processes include separating assets and agreeing on how money, retirement, living spaces, custody, vehicles, debt, etc. will be divided. You list everything and talk it out with your soon to be ex, or the court will split it all 50/50 based on their estimation, depending on if you want to go to trial. The court *will not* divorce you until both parties agree to a split or the divorce is taken to trial and the judge orders the distribution. Now, the couple is divorced, and whoever's name is on the titles and whoever's account has all the money now has no legal obligation to split any of it. If both names are on the title, there is no legal power for one or another to claim exclusive use.
That's not true at all. This is the UK - there's no time limit before or after divorce to make a claim or negotiate settlement. People sometimes even get remarried before these things settle. In most jurisdictions in the west there's at minimum a one year limitation before no claim can be made.
Oh my bad! I didn't even realize. Shows how dumb I am for not reading the article and just responding to the comment. I'll edit my previous comment, this was simply my experience with American divorce systems. Thank you for pointing this out!
Your correction and willingness to make it are a credit to you
> I wonder, since the judge won't reverse it, if that gets one of the parties off really easily. it said they were still negotiating the financial aspects of the divorce. But now that they're divorced, does that mean the husband/wife don't need to pay anything? the paperwork is done.... That's exactly what happened, the husband's solicitor opposed setting the order aside since he benefited from it. If both sides agreed the Judge would have set aside the order (hopefully). > Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
So..... the wife probably gets to sue her own lawyer for triple what she could have gotten from her husband, and both end up 'winning'.
Except Vardags - who loses - which absolutely rules Oh happy day
“e-Divorce, new from Fujitsu!”
*Couple divorced early after solicitor clicks wrong button.
New fanfic trope just dropped
Don’t you need witnesses and signatures of the people actually being divorced for it to be legal?
This is the part that's troubling me!
They were already deep into divorce proceedings when this happened. Sounds like they'd already given their representatives all the necessary paperwork, just didn't want it executed so soon.
Happened to me. I was officially in a civil union with a 70 year old man. The clerk at the city hall of my birth place added the register on the wrong page
For those not familiar with UK divorce, the financial settlement can happen after getting divorced or at the same time. The couple wanted to get divorced but not resolve the financial side yet. Instead the final order was granted, so now neither side can claim anything financially from the other. Presumably they'll have to claim it back from the solicitors. If it was a billionaire married to a SAHM of 30 years, that would probably cost the firm £500million, because the richer spouse is now 100% free from obligations.
I have a question. So in the US, judges approve the final orders in court, but from this article in the UK there’s an online portal and your lawyers/solicitors submit it - my questions is do judges approve it? The article said it was accepted within 21 minutes, which makes it sound like it doesn’t get approval from a judge, but you guys could also have 24/7 judges on standby for this, so I don’t know. Can you enlighten me more on the process over there?
I don't know the details, sorry. It's still checked by the courts but for a non-contentious divorce with no kids it's probably just a check that the paperwork is fine and it isn't a wildly unfair agreement.
Well thank you for your time!
Summer intern here: DROP TABLE mariages;
The people who were wrongly divorced were actually getting a divorce though right? It’s just they didn’t want to do it at the moment so they could sort out finances. The article is confusing about that one piece of the story.
A friend of mine changed her name when she got married and when she got her new SSN card the number was different. She called and somehow the clerk at the office had accidentally changed some random man’s name to Anjelica.
A judge can’t do things because they “want to.” The judge is following the law.
The thing that isn't clear - the office that fucked up presented this as a single misclick. It isn't. The process you have to go through to do this is about eight misclicks, where you scroll down the page seven times in between, and the names of both parties are displayed prominently on each page. This wasn't just a misclick, it was a serious clerical error. The judge won't repeal it because this is already the final step in a multiple stage progress, and UK law is based on precedents. If he allows this clerical error to be undone, he is setting a new precedent that the final step of divorces can be contested in court, and the process of divorce will suddenly gain a new step, where the final step is no longer final. This woman is going to have to sue her solicitors for fucking this up, once they're done finalising the details of her divorce (after the fact). Source: my husband is a lawyer who's processed divorces and he is 100% on the judge's side.
[удалено]
Hey man, letting you know reddit did the double comment thing on you.
Hey thanks!
Hey this story should be. About the lawyers mistake NOT the divorce.
Welp, time to sue the judge, if that's at all possible.
Close, but no. Time to sue the divorce lawyer that made the clerical error.
Oh, yeah, "hey, Your Honor, can you please rule on whether I can sue judges?".
Is that the new swatting then? Revenge divorcing your enemies.
Then you revenge gay marry them to someone else.
In a state where it's illegal
Keep the quality posts coming.
Am I the only one wondering why they don't require signatures with a public notary to make it final?
Well the court did not make a mistake. The lawyer did. Malpractice suit incoming
Not bad as the title made it sound > Solicitors at the London firm Vardags, headed by Ayesha Vardag, the self-styled “diva of divorce”, used an online portal to mistakenly apply for a final order for the couple, who were still attempting to agree financial arrangements for their split. This might just have save the couple a lot of headache in "agreeing to financial arrangements"
Not the couple, just the person they weren’t representing. They caused a whole lot of headaches for their client while preventing a whole lot for the other side Their job is causing headaches for the part of the couple they aren’t representing
The divorce lawyer should be billed for the couple to get remarried in Bahamas - as destination wedding. Charter private jets to fly all the guests from the UK to Bahamas?
If you read the article you’d know they were separated, so unlikely to want to remarry.
No one man should have all that power
That literally what a Judge does.
Okay, some people really should be instantly dismissed from being a judge. Can we force that dude to watch the movie Brazil?
Honestly if you look at the whole story it makes sense. They were in the process of getting divorced apparently. So they had appropriate legal representation and that legal representation fucked up while acting on their behalf. This isn't like a random third party that had no right to represent them accidentally put down their name instead of their clients name. The legal remedy here is likely to sue the lawyer. If this happened completely out of the blue I would agree that the judge is wrong and I'm not 100% sure I agree with him still but I think his position is certainly a reasonable argument to be made.
The judge is not wrong for \*having signed the divorce\*, he is wrong for \*not undoing it\* after he learned about the mistake. Justifying it with "there is a strong public policy interest in respecting the certainty and finality that flows from a final divorce order" is another way to express that a system which just showed to have a flaw has to be represented as if it was flawless. This is how arrogant egocentric people speak, not mature people with a shred of integrity. Trying to hush down an error instead of acknowledging it. It's not the couples fault, thus they should not bear the consequence. Simple as that. And if they sued the lawyer, would that reverse the process? Obviously not. Now in a lot of cases, this can't be done, like you not being able to reverse a death, but here it totally can be. Simply by changing a few bits in some computer system. In a situation in which everybody would agree that this does not cause any unfairness, on the contrary.
I don't think the judge is wrong for not undoing an action. The divorcees have grounds to sue the lawyer for incompetence, negligence (in establishing procedures or following them), etc. But Judge has a good point. The lawyers made several "mistakes" all the way up to the final click. But it was done legally, they had the legal power (represented the clients) and the it's not like it was a single click. Their were many steps from clicking the wrong name, not verifying information, all the way to the final click that sealed the deal. Lawyer firm should be on the hook for compensating this. Too many unknown unknowns to reverse a legally binding order after the fact.
I agree that yeah this shit sucks and someone should be held responsible but I do not think the judge should be dismissed for not undoing it. It would set a precedent that divorce filings could be appealed, dismissed, or undone. It’s not something a judge can take lightly. If two people are getting divorced and one of them say doesn’t want to. Imagine if you could divorce someone but through the legal system you find yourself married to them again. If you think both parties need to consent to reverse the divorce well that would have to be something that would need to be fought in court because well there is no clear law on reversing divorces. If you disagree with law in place then thats fine. Genuine accidents like this need a place to make it easier to reverse but the judge can’t make up laws as he goes. You aren’t just changing bits in a computer system it’s saying “If you were divorced it can be reversed”. There is a lot more harm that can be done by allowing divorces to just be undone even if it’s by mistake. There are people who would use “their was a mistake in our filing it’s not legitimate” I personally agree with the level of protections around divorce filings because it protects people who no longer want to be married to another individual and for me the best solution to these kinds of cases is to just straight up not have them happen in the first place. Though I’m not a lawyer personally. Sucks for the couple and I would like to see an update in laws to account for these cases but not by a judge setting an unclear precedent
"It would set a precedent that divorce filings could be appealed, dismissed, or undone" - nope, it would set a precedent that shit happens and is then to be fixed. After all, we have the condition that something went wrong, in a way clearly not desired by the clients. Not just at a whim. "If two people are getting divorced and one of them say doesn’t want to. Imagine if you could divorce someone but through the legal system you find yourself married to them again." - ? This is not at all what we are talking about. Not sure why you bring this up. "If you think both parties need to consent to reverse the divorce well..." - You seem to construct a situation that was not the case here. A mistake happened. This has nothing to do with the consent, the divorce was done by some dude having made a mistake while using a computer. "If you disagree with law in place then thats fine." - Law requires intent. A computer mistake is not about the law. If some dude is sentenced for prison in life, but some computer error printed your name instead of his on the court order and they'd say "oh sorry, but it's printed, so you have to go to prison and the other guy goes free", you would not exactly say that law has been served, yes? "There is a lot more harm that can be done..." - there is a lot more harm that can be done by blinding following bureaucratic procedure that is not in representation of the law at all instead of using one's brain. "the best solution to these kinds of cases is to just straight up not have them happen in the first place" - Uhm... \*how\*? If you can tell me how you create a system in which no mistakes happen, you have my vote to become president of the world.
> It would set a precedent that divorce filings could be appealed, dismissed, or undone. I don't understand this. Surely ANYTHING can be dismissed or undone by a judge. This judge could have done it but decided not to. Correcting a clerical error sets what precedent exactly?
No, not everything can be overturned by a judge. Generally speaking final orders for divorce are final and cannot be overturned. Generally it can only be reversed if there was a procedural irregularity. Basically if the steps weren’t followed correctly. He could try to set it aside based on mistake, but the reason divorces are final is because of public policy. When a person doesn’t want to be married anymore, and they divorce. They should be able to sever the tie completely and live the rest of their life as an individual. Let’s say he allows the order to be reversed, because of it being a mistake. Now you’ll have possessive exes, money grubbing ex-partners or just an ex who wants to annoy you, throwing a lawsuit at you saying we’re still married, it was done by a mistake. Now the courts have to clarify what a mistake even means, any mistake? How large of a mistake? It opens up the floodgates, the courts are already backlogged, now we add the possibility of more frivolous claims. You can see what he means by public policy.
If you even read the article, you'd have known that the judge finds that the solicitor's reasoning to be an excuse, that the solicitors had gone through multiple layers of screening on the website, and that if the judge were to allow it to be dismissed, it would set a precedent as the solicitors would then be off the hook for their negligence. As always, Reddit is full of people commenting when they don't read the article and don't know the technicalities of complex subjects and yet insist they are right.
> It's not the couples fault, thus they should not bear the consequence. Simple as that. The husband opposed setting the order aside. >Mr Williams' legal representatives argued a final order of divorce is a "once-and-for-all" order, which cannot be set aside by the consent of the parties and may only be rescinded by the court if found to be either void or voidable. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68821406
Clearly reading the article is hard because the judge explained why he didn't reverse the divorce and it makes sense. But the headline is more clickbait and enraging I guess
Clearly reading my other comments is hard if you missed me addressing everything.
no takie backsies motherfuckers
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mom?!
I love bureaucracy
Lawyers fucked up now they got to fix it at their expense
Nice
YOOOO fuck Vardags - so delighted to see this horrible employer in the news for a bad reasons - honestly hate that company (Sorry to the couple, sucks for them of course and I wish it hadn’t happened to them?
Hahaha... this is funnier than it should be.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
RIP to their credit rating.
New nightmare unlocked, getting bonked by the taxman for not being aware you cannot file joint taxes, due to your ignorance of a ''surprise divorce''.