Unreasonable Behaviour - quickest method?

My STBX decided has decided to turn everything into into a huge battleground and, apparently, the grounds for the divorce are going to be changed to unreasonable behaviour.

I had thought this was rarely used in Scotland as it was difficult to prove, but from what I've read tonight it's actually pretty easy.

Does that mean we could actually divorce before the 1 year is up?

What exactly would be deemed unreasonable?

I have a feeling what will be said but if that behaviour was evident throughout the entire relationship can it still be used as unreasonable after the marriage?

If unreasonable behvaiour is so easy, why do most divorces in Scotland not use it?

Gromble;

The reason why fault-­base­d grounds are rarely cited in Scots divorces is that should the defendant choose to defend the allegations made against them (either adultery or U, the onus is then on the pursuer to prove that the allegations are fact - and a "heavy burden" of proof is required. All the defendant has to do is tick a box and the divorce then becomes a defended one, and there then begins a series of Proof hearings etc. Should there not be enough proof for the Sheriff to be satisfied, then the divorce is dismissed, and everyone is back at the beginning.

The reason why most divorcing couples use either the 1 year separation or 2 years separation as grounds for divorce is a) the proof that is required for fault ­base­d divorce and b.) a Decree can not be granted until the matters concerning the children and finances have been resolved, usually by way of a Separation Agreement - this can take some time to reach an agreement, so waiting for at least a year before beginning the divorce itself allows both parties time to come to that agreement.

If UB is used, then it would have to be behaviour that caused the marriage to fail. We can not determine what is unreasonable about our own behaviour, it would be up to someone else to find certain behaviours unreasonable.

You don't have to defend the divorce, of course, and choose to allow it to be undefended, for which no proof would be required. So even if she ploughs ahead with the UB, until the finances and matters relating to the children are resolved, the Decree won't be granted.

I would defend U B as I dont think its fair, but I don't want my dirty laundry washed in public either.

What kind of proof would be required? And is it a lot more costly to go down the U B route?

It might not be fair to you, but if your wife feels your behaviour was unreasonable and caused the marriage to fail, then she is within her right to cite UB as grounds for divorce. If you choose to defend the allegations, then your laundry, dirty or otherwise will be hung out in the Proof hearing

Depending on what the allegations are would depend on the proof that is required, but witnesses are often called to the hearings, police reports are used (if appropriate), etc.

You don't know yet if she will cite UB - and surely her sols would have pointed out that issuing a Divorce Writ before the outstanding financial and child issues are resolved is somewhat premature.

I forget, how long have you been separated? If you are close to the 12 months mark, then why not issue your own Writ for 12 months separation?

It's not been long and things are nowhere near finalised re the financial stuff, it's just all getting pretty messy now and I think it's turning bitter.

Can she only cite U B once the financials are settled? Would I get notice etc? What if say we agree the finances in a few months on the assumption that the divorce will be by separation, but then it changes?

I want to be fair with the fiances but I'll play it by the book (which is not actually in her interests just now) if she tries to use U B as it's the principal which is at stake here.

Divorce is by its very nature, a bitter and nasty experience, Im afraid.

She can issue a Writ at any time, but the Sheriff will not sign the Decree until he is satisfied there are no outstanding issues to be resolved (and most sols I know wont issue the Writ if there are outstanding issues).

You could have a clause written into your Separation Agreement that divorce will be on the grounds of separation only - but she would need to agree to the clause as well. I had such a clause written into my SA, and that if 12 months separation was used, it wouldn't be defended.

The division of marital assets under Scots law is usually on a fairly even basis, so there tends not to be much room to maneuver anyway (unless its by mutual consent).

Principles have little place in law, as its facts that matter - don't tie yourself up in knots about what may or may not be contained in the Writ (which currently doesn't exist) - you know the truth, so does she, and those that matter to you. The grounds for divorce are really just a means to an end, as the only legal reason for ending a marriage and granting a divorce is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage; the grounds are there to prove how the marriage has broken down, that's all.

Thanks.

Makes sense.