From your experience, does what this lawyer told me sound right to you?
I finally got to talk to a lawyer today about my situation. In short, I got married last July, in Costa Rica. I have never actually resided with my husband since we were married, but we spent four months after our marriage down in Central America, and then came home to our respective countries back in November. Since then, he went off the deep end, and we fought violently for a couple months, then as of two weeks ago he "skipped town" as far as I can determine, has cut off all contact, claims he was leaving his home and I would never see him again.
Being that I am 900 miles from his home in Canada, I can't verify that he's gone, but I certainly have no word from him or evidence to the contrary.
Anyways, the lawyer told me that I can serve him now, to his last known address, but if he won't sign for it, in order for me to get a divorce we would have to petition the courts that he cannot be located, and prove that we have exhausted all options for locating him. This, I was told, would be "very expensive". That coming from a laywer does not bode well, considering I have very little money.
However, the lawyer also told me that if we are living separate for two years or more, then I can obtain the divorce without my husband's consent or needing to sign for it, and that I really gain nothing by filing the divorce now. I might cut a month off the time it would take were he to pop back into my life and agree to the divorce 6 months down the road or something, but otherwise, it does nothing.
He seemed to indicate I'm kind of up **** creek without a paddle. It wasn't an overly optimistic talk, I have to say.
I mean, if he's right that it's a no brainer to get things worked out two years from now assuming my husband and I have not reconciled, and that I don't have to worry any longer about his consent, then that's fine by me. I certainly don't intend to remarry anytime soon, though having my legal status being married might mess with some financial situations such as school grants and so forth in the interim. But not the end of my life I suppose.
But people had indicated to me that I need to act fast on the divorce, otherwise it will be harder for me down the road to obtain a divorce if I just sit on things now. But this lawyer is indicating the opposite, that it would be harder for me to act now, than to wait until more time has passed.
Does anyone have any knowledge on if this sounds correct or not? Or maybe I should have posted in the "life after divorce" section...