A Marital Disqualification


 Hi there,

I got caught this April Fools’ Day by a very funny and elaborate April Fools’ prank by my partner Shep Davidson, co-author with Renee Inomata of The In-House Advisor blog.

It made me think about a real evidentiary issue in divorce cases, the Spousal Disqualification. This is not a privilege — privileges can be waived. It’s a disqualification to testify to the content of a discussion between spouses, if the spouses had a reasonable expectation the conversation would be private.

I think the disqualification was a result of the desire to treat marriage differently from any other relationship. Privileges exist with other relationships, for example patient/psychotherapist and lawyer/client, among others. However, in these relationships the privilege belongs to the patient or the client, and they alone can waive the privilege and the testimony will come in. This is not the case with spousal disqualification because both spouses have to agree to the waiver. In practice this happens by default; if one person offers the testimony and the other fails to object to the testimony, the disqualification is waived.There are also exceptions which arise often in divorce law, including proceedings arising out of or involving contracts between spouses; paternity and child support proceedings; non support, desertion or neglect proceedings; child abuse/incest proceedings; criminal proceedings involving one spouse victimizing the other; violation of a vacate, restraining or no contact order; and a couple of other circumstances which only apply in the criminal courts.

There are also ways to get around the disqualification if the judge allows (some do, some don’t). It often arises in divorce proceedings where one spouse has confessed to an affair to the other spouse. The attorney can have the spouse who wishes to testify describe where the parties were and whether or not any one could have overheard them. In a restaurant or a public place the expectation of privacy didn’t exist, and of course if the children were present or nearby it arguably didn’t exist either.



Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Burns & Levinson LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.