navywife1979
New Member
My jurisdiction is: wisconsin, usa
My dear friend just discovered that after 5 years of marriage that her marriage may be void since she didn't wait 6 months to remarry after a divorce. She was divorced in England and was told (by a lawyer) that she could remarry in WI and since she wasn't divorced in WI the 6 month wait didn't apply to her like it did for her husband (who was divorced in WI and did wait the 6mos). Her and her husband of course are a bit freaked but we did some digging and discovered that according to s.765.23 which can be found on the wisconsin state legislature site, their marriage is probably valid after all since they did go into the marriage believing it was 100% legal and they have been living a wonderfully happy life for the past 5 years as man and wife with two beautiful boys ages 4 and 2. Her husband is in the military and currently deployed to Iraq so this is really weighing heavy on them too.
So my question is, are we misunderstanding this section of the law or are we interpereting it correctly?
Thanks in advance for any answers and feel free to ask anything if you need elaboration.
My dear friend just discovered that after 5 years of marriage that her marriage may be void since she didn't wait 6 months to remarry after a divorce. She was divorced in England and was told (by a lawyer) that she could remarry in WI and since she wasn't divorced in WI the 6 month wait didn't apply to her like it did for her husband (who was divorced in WI and did wait the 6mos). Her and her husband of course are a bit freaked but we did some digging and discovered that according to s.765.23 which can be found on the wisconsin state legislature site, their marriage is probably valid after all since they did go into the marriage believing it was 100% legal and they have been living a wonderfully happy life for the past 5 years as man and wife with two beautiful boys ages 4 and 2. Her husband is in the military and currently deployed to Iraq so this is really weighing heavy on them too.
So my question is, are we misunderstanding this section of the law or are we interpereting it correctly?
Thanks in advance for any answers and feel free to ask anything if you need elaboration.