WWYD - Boyfriend's separated wife is being creepy

[luvsJack]

Not to go wildly OT, but this varies significantly by state. My DD24 lives in MA, the rest of us live in NC. Her car is registered in MA. She has a MA license. She lives in MA, she works in MA, she's registered to vote in MA. MA is 800 miles away from NC (give or take). It still took her and I two hours in the insurance office, with all documentation and the agent on the phone to the carrier, to get her off of our car insurance. They kept using the argument that she would drive our vehicles when she was visiting. Spoiler alert: her last visit was last December, when we did all this. North Carolina simply isn't her home (we moved here while she was in college). It WAS her legal residence while she finished school. It was a royal PITA. Added bonus, we moved here from New Hampshire, which doesn't require car insurance (we still had it). There, it was easy-peasy to add or drop someone from insurance. Bottom line, it may be NBD in your state, but some of us really have to jump through hoops.

Wow. That is crazy! We only have to list anyone if they live in the household.

 

[luvsJack]

Just like in the insurance discussion going on here, the legal “advise” going on here is all based on where someone lives too.

In this state, there is no alimony. All martial belongings either are agreed upon or equally divided. And honestly, once the parties are living apart, the judges don’t care who is seeing who. If minor children are involved (which isn’t the case in either of the two here), it can get a little stickier but as long as the children are cared for and living in a stable environment, it’s all good.

My bil was separated from his first wife and in a custody battle over their child. He met and was seeing his now wife during all of it. His gf wasn’t living with him but was very active in his and his child’s life. The ex tried to bring that up in court and the judge asked if the gf was abusive or neglectful, she had to say no. He then asked if she could show any way that the gf was a bad influence in the child’s life. She said no. He told her then it was none of her business. Bil got custody, ex moved on and had no relationship with her child until she was a teen—by the ex’s choice.

In another state that could have ended up differently but here, it’s not that way. So all of it is really about the laws of the Op and pp’s state.

 

[Hikergirl]

Unfortunately, that is something that comes with the territory. Any good divorce attorney will tell their clients to not get involved with another party until divorce is final.

I totally understand that, but sometimes it just happens.
I don't fault the husband moving on, if his marriage is truly over (even if legally it isn't) and I don't fault OP for meeting and getting involved with him when he was no longer living with his wife.
They've been together a year and a half, maybe he is getting back with his wife, or maybe he is just trying to get that divorce finalized once and for all.

 

[tzolkin]

You say that you won't have to deal with her because his daughter is 19. Well, that's just not true. If you and he end up staying together long-term, there's a whole host of possible life events where you'll have to deal with her including college graduation, marriages, grandkids, etc.

This is so true, but I think people tend to not consider all the details because they're in love. It may not be a reason to end the relationship, but it is something worth being realistic about. It will absolutely have an impact on family dynamics and gatherings throughout the course of the relationship.

I once had a conflict over this whole ex-still-part-of-the-family issue and I wasn't even the one in the relationship.--- My uncle and his wife were in the process of getting a divorce. Uncle had started dating and brought his new partner to family Christmas. During that weekend, the new girlfriend cornered me to ask if I had invited uncle's (ex)wife to my wedding (in June). I said, "Well, I haven't sent out invitations yet, but I would assume that if she's in the country then she will most likely attend" (she had temporarily moved overseas) GF was horrified, "Why would SHE possibly attend?" I responded, "Because she's my aunt" to which she screamed, "No, she's your EX aunt". My cousin (uncle and aunt's child) was getting married less than a week after I was, so I told her that Aunt was obviously going to be at her own son's wedding, so she could use my wedding as a practice run for being at the same event with my uncle's "ex".

I'm sure there are some families or situations where it's easier to completely cut ties, but in some instances it's just not practical to expect.

 

[Heather07438]

OP asked advice about how far somebody could pursue digging into her life, when and where she could have any legal ground to protect herself from intrusion should it escalate and become a threat.

Marriage law varies state to state, country to country. Points are being made about the black and white around marriage, but she's specifically asking about the black and white of intrusion. I think she realizes some intrusion needs to be expected and tolerated in this scenario but if things continue to spiral out of control, at what point can she protect her security legally? If I knew, I'd tell her. Laws are made to protect everybody, not just the people we agree with. Otherwise law could not work.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I was honest and accurate. They asked if I was married. I said yes. They didn’t ask to who.

That one entity is slowly going away, or seems to be or at least here. I remember with my parents, almost every thing they owned was in both of their names. Any credit asked for both of their incomes, etc. Our home is the only thing in both of our names. Dd and Sil, don’t have anything in both names.

Their auto insurance is completely separate. Her car insurance was cheaper on our’s so it is. His is on the policy he had before they got married.

I was referring to your comment that they don't know he is your husband and that he could be your brother for all they know. In your defense the insurance company may not have spots in their system for the relationship to each other though I guess I still would say something to the effect "I'm married to so and so". In our systems you had to say what your relationship was to the Head of the Household (in the insurance world not IRL/tax purposes world). If we saw a Head of Household listed as married but no one listed as their spouse it would throw up caution flags as to where that spouse was. The old system would allow it and it would just be an Underwriting issue but the new system would not allow you to list the Head of Household as married without having someone listed as their spouse.

When I'm talking about one entity of course different things will adjust over time differently. The only thing that matters is how something is treated in the industry being spoken about and how the company you are with handles things. Things change, I'm just telling you how it was with the insurance company I worked for. The spouses thing was really a protection (so you couldn't just up and remove your spouse without their knowledge), the accurate reflection of the relationship impacted just what we could do and for exposure reasons to ensure all were listed.

Lots of people do things to save money. It doesn't mean that it's not still a problem to the insurance company--that of course depends on the insurance company. I know I def. non-renewed people who were not rated or excluded. So even if your son-in-law was covered under a different insurance company we would have required him to be rated (or excluded if allowed) on the policy your daughter had. Too many times I would get calls from claims where they would only cover the claim if we added the person into the household. In all honesty I just don't want to take the chance that the insurance company won't cover me in the event of a loss. It is typical that insurance companies at least want to list all who would have regular access to vehicles in the household. Some may have looser rules regarding the rating of those who would have regular access.

In any case we've obviously gone a longer tangent than I originally thought it would be lol.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Just like in the insurance discussion going on here, the legal “advise” going on here is all based on where someone lives too.

In this state, there is no alimony. All martial belongings either are agreed upon or equally divided. And honestly, once the parties are living apart, the judges don’t care who is seeing who. If minor children are involved (which isn’t the case in either of the two here), it can get a little stickier but as long as the children are cared for and living in a stable environment, it’s all good.

My bil was separated from his first wife and in a custody battle over their child. He met and was seeing his now wife during all of it. His gf wasn’t living with him but was very active in his and his child’s life. The ex tried to bring that up in court and the judge asked if the gf was abusive or neglectful, she had to say no. He then asked if she could show any way that the gf was a bad influence in the child’s life. She said no. He told her then it was none of her business. Bil got custody, ex moved on and had no relationship with her child until she was a teen—by the ex’s choice.

In another state that could have ended up differently but here, it’s not that way. So all of it is really about the laws of the Op and pp’s state.

I think the 'not seeing someone else' is pretty much a general advice irrespective of state. The judge may not care depending on a particular judge, but it could impact the willingness for the other party to play fair, to end the process in a reasonable time frame, the behaviors of all involved (including the new person) could impact decisions made, etc.

I think attorneys just give that advice because it can add another layer into something that can already be a complicated things (both legally and emotionally). Obviously people date while still legally married and nothing, to their knowedge, of ill will comes about it. But it's still probably just a general advice most attorneys would give out.

And as you can see by your brother-in-law the new person in his life impacted how his ex handled things. Judge still asked clarifying questions and even if nothing was amiss, the ex did bring it up (and for good reason in all honesty as that's a valid question with respects to minor children involved).

 

[Wishing on a star]

I don't get involve with his kids and divorce at all, but the thought of this woman having a video of me totally creeps me out. I'm not worried about what she may find as I have nothing to hide, but the thought of her digging into my privacy is really bothering me. Should I seek legal counsel? go to Police? Do I have any grounds to do anything?
Thanks for any advice.

OP asked advice about how far somebody could pursue digging into her life, when and where she could have any legal ground to protect herself from intrusion should it escalate and become a threat.

Excellent post to bring this back where it should be.
I do not think that the wife has actually done anything illegal.
Doing what she is doing, and trying to fight for what she thinks she wants, or simply make it more impossible for this divorce to happen, does not seem to be illegal, and is within her rights. This wife would have to be guilty of using illegal measures to access information/photos/etc. (as I had posted, does not make it 'okay', but what one thinks is okay is not relevant here)

Being this involved with a married person, especially one who might be going thru a nasty divorce, is going to mean that this stuff can come with the package.

I think it is fair game to suggest that for somebody to protect oneself, they do not become so involved with a married man (woman).

 

[Heather07438]

Excellent post to bring this back where it should be.
I do not think that the wife has actually done anything illegal.
Doing what she is doing, and trying to fight for what she thinks she wants, or simply make it more impossible for this divorce to happen, does not seem to be illegal, and is within her rights. This wife would have to be guilty of using illegal measures to access information/photos/etc. (as I had posted, does not make it 'okay', but what one thinks is okay is not relevant here)

Being this involved with a married person, especially one who might be going thru a nasty divorce, is going to mean that this stuff can come with the package.

I think it is fair game to suggest that for somebody to protect oneself, they do not become so involved with a married man (woman).

Thank goodness the soon to be wife is not a Scientologist. They are #1 at digging and manipulating. They'll do stuff to encroach upon every facet of an adversary's life. Like if they're a school teacher, keep calling and writing in complaints. Follow their every move ominously. Anything and everything. At some point, people need to be able to protect themselves from the kooks in the world, lol.

ETA- to clarify, I'm not saying the wife is a kook necessarily. But if she turns out to be one, then there are further levels she can go and it would be wise to arm yourself proactively.

 

[palavra]

According to the law (which is all that matters) you are married until the court says you aren't. Pretty simple to understand, even if you wish otherwise.

The law has nothing to do with dating someone else and moving on. That is what you don't seem to understand. My daughter's father is not involved in my life at all other than with my daughter. We live separate lives for a few more months. Not sure why that is a problem for you.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

The law has nothing to do with dating someone else and moving on. That is what you don't seem to understand. My daughter's father is not involved in my life at all other than with my daughter. We live separate lives for a few more months. Not sure why that is a problem for you.

I don't think anyone has a problem with your relationship. You're entitled to happiness. But the OP's post was about her boyfriend's still wife being creepy and hiring a PI. Sure that sounds pathetic, but she's still married to him and is maybe trying to build her divorce case. The judge/mediator handle the legality only.

OP, As for your concerns about intrusion, I get that. Ask an attorney if you can do anything about that.

 

[disneychrista]

The law has nothing to do with dating someone else and moving on.

But the "law" has everything to do with you (still) being legally married.

But you are right many people move on and start dating soon after being separated, before being actually being legally divorced. I think in most cases this isn't an issue for either party. BUT this may not be the case for the OP.

 

[palavra]

I don't think anyone has a problem with your relationship. You're entitled to happiness. But you posted about his still wife being creepy and hiring a PI. Sure that sounds pathetic, but she's still married to him and is maybe trying to build her divorce case. The judge/mediator handle the legality only.

I'm not the OP. Actually, her question was about the legality of the PI photos on the estranged wife's side.

 

[Boardwalk Jedi]

I'm not the OP. Actually, her question was about the legality of the PI photos on the estranged wife's side.

Just corrected that. Sorry!

 

[Heather07438]

Whether or not OP was dating a husband, privacy laws protect her the same. Those laws don't change. Certain digging and surveillance is legal and some is not. As others have said, a good local lawyer will have those answers and hopefully advice on how to proceed without escalating the situation.

 

[MrsDuck]

I think this kinda comes with the turf of dating a man going through a divorce. I'd certainly keep my eye on things but I don't think there's anything to do at this point.

 

[Searc]

The law has nothing to do with dating someone else and moving on. That is what you don't seem to understand. My daughter's father is not involved in my life at all other than with my daughter. We live separate lives for a few more months. Not sure why that is a problem for you.

I'm happily married and have been for many years. It isn't a problem for me. I'm explaining the plain fact you're still married according to the law, whether you want to be or not.

 

[Searc]

Whether or not OP was dating a husband, privacy laws protect her the same. Those laws don't change. Certain digging and surveillance is legal and some is not. As others have said, a good local lawyer will have those answers and hopefully advice on how to proceed without escalating the situation.

I'm sure PI's are well-versed on what is legal and what isn't.

 

[piccolopat]

I'm not assuming anything. You're honestly the one assuming things as in people just go and separate and live their happy lives for an undetermined time before actually getting legally divorced and/or dealing with the consequences of said divorce. More often than not it's a messy, complicated entire process. You don't have to be sad over the divorce on either party for it to turn out that way.

Legalities are actually very important to the discussion. You asked how is it any different. Because being married is different than not being married for a variety of things. It just is. You can live your own life if you want to but that doesn't mean there aren't things that are impacted by still being legallly married. If you're going to ask of other posters and quote them then you're going to hear how your situation and your feelings don't necessarily match others.

The insurance would be more the company not the state level. Each insurance company is filed with their state's DOI (Department of Insurance). I'm sure you can find ones that don't care, I was giving an example of how it would be different than just simply announcing you're separated. You can be separated for 10 years if you wanted to with the insurance company I worked for, but until you got legally divorced we couldn't remove the spouse off the policy. And under no circumstances could we remove a spouse without their permission. Can you imagine how a husband could just up and remove his wife he was divorcing off the auto policy-she's driving around and has no idea she doesn't have coverage? What does buying your own car have anything to do with it? That's nice I guess. I bought my own car too (long before I met him), so did my husband. Still wouldn't change the auto insurance with both cars being covered under the policy with us also being covered.

Medical insurance will vary. For instance father-in-law had to cover wife he was divorcing on his medical insurance for approximately 2 years. She was still going through breast cancer treatment and the judge ruled it would not be in any way shape or form ok to remove her off of his because of his type of coverage he was getting and her inability to get her own. In terms of companies you'd have to look at their policies regarding it and the other party would have to look at the policies in respects to getting insurance when they used to be covered under a different policy (life qualifying event and all) when not considered legally divorced. Great that you had no issues but again don't assume your situation is like others. Much depends on the insurance company and/or company policy with respects to coverage.

Moving on emotionally is only a piece of the overall process.

Auto insurance isn't one size fits all. Some companies offer a named driver exclusion while others will write a named driver policy, effectively limiting coverage to that named driver. Others are like the one that you worked for. This can also vary by state as each has its own sets of rules and regulations that govern what a company can file to do. I wouldn't assume that someone who is separated from their spouse is unable to buy a new car and insure it without including their soon to be ex-spouse.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Auto insurance isn't one size fits all. Some companies offer a named driver exclusion while others will write a named driver policy, effectively limiting coverage to that named driver. Others are like the one that you worked for. This can also vary by state as each has its own sets of rules and regulations that govern what a company can file to do. I wouldn't assume that someone who is separated from their spouse is unable to buy a new car and insure it without including their soon to be ex-spouse.

You must not have read my comments. If you did you would know I said repeatedly it depends on the company, their policies and how they are filed with the state DOI. Have no idea where you got the idea that I was assuming someone can't get their own insurance, pretty sure I said it depends on the company and gave what the company I worked for did. That was in response to a poster who said they as they are separated from their spouse (well they kept saying former husband) they were leading completely separate lives. I gave examples that it's not that everyone can just do that not even talking about emotionally living separate lives. As far as different states, I dealt with nearly 35 states when I was at the insurance company, some states are definitely crazy crazy IMO, some are very pro-insured, some not, some are pretty lax, some are extremely strict, some allow credit scores to be used and some saying the word credit score is a no no and so on. Guess it goes with the territory of having 50 states lol.

In any case I think the insurance tangent has run its course