Jump to content


Photo

Mutual Injunction


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 mcfjr1

mcfjr1

    New Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 03:11 AM

My wife of 41 years and I were recently divorced.  Due to financial conditions I had to do the divorce Pro Sa.  At the final hearing her lawyer asked the judge to turn a Mutual Temporary Injunction into a permanent injunction with the following change;  "modification to read that the communication between the parties shall be by regular mail only."  The judge granted the request.  I was too dumbfounded and numb to even say anything.  I view this as being unnecessary , censorship and abridging of my first amendment rights.  During this day of modern technology which has produced communication such as cell phones, email, texting and instant messenger it is unconceivable that someone would be restricted to using only snail mail.  This means we can never be at the same family function.  It means that ten or twenty years from now if we ran into each other we could not even speak.  I have tried to find court cases addressing this issue, but have had no luck.  Am I right or wrong regarding the judges decision and how do I get this overturned?  Where can I find decisions to back me up?  Thank You.


#2 Ted_from_Texas

Ted_from_Texas

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,982 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 03:53 AM

You're wrong, I'm afraid.  Snail mail is a perfectly valid way to communicate, and is still a legal requirement in some situations and contexts.  The injunction does nothing to abridge your constitutional right of free speech.  Note that you do not have, and never had, a constitutional right to address a particular person in a particular way.


Whether and under what circumstances you can get the injunction modified or vacated depends on the particular circumstances of your case, and the reason(s) it was issued in the first place.  Consult local counsel.



#3 pg1067

pg1067

    Platinum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 45,402 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 04:05 AM

mcfjr1 said...

I was too dumbfounded and numb to even say anything.  I view this as being unnecessary , censorship and abridging of my first amendment rights.

Seriously?  It's not, but why would you have any need to communicate with your ex-spouse?


mcfjr1 said...

it is unconceivable that someone would be restricted to using only snail mail.

No, it's not.


mcfjr1 said...

This means we can never be at the same family function.

No, it doesn't.  Simply being at the same "function" doesn't mean you have to communicate.


mcfjr1 said...

It means that ten or twenty years from now if we ran into each other we could not even speak.

It is unlikely that any court would interpret the order to bar any incidental communication that might result from a chance encounter in public or at a "function" that you both have a legitimate purpose for attending.  And, again, why would you need or want to communicate with your ex-spouse?  Of course, if both of you are fine with communicating, you can.


mcfjr1 said...

Am I right or wrong regarding the judges decision

Wrong.


mcfjr1 said...

how do I get this overturned?

You didn't say how long ago the judgment/order was entered, but it's likely that you can't.  If you wanted to get it reversed, you needed to appeal it.  Appeal deadlines are typically very short (I'm not aware of anywhere where the longest deadline is longer than six months).


mcfjr1 said...

Where can I find decisions to back me up?

I doubt that you can, but you can research the books in which the case decisions of the courts of your unidentified state are published.  They are available at any law library.




Back to Marriage & Divorce


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users