PETERSON WANTS DIVORCE - PROSPECTIVE ATTORNEYS BEWARE: REQUIREMENT TO "FULLY SET FORTH FACTS" OF ABANDONMENT IMPOSSIBLE!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 12:30AM Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a criminal defense attorney, but I can't defend everyone! Attorneys can pick their clients. And, similarly, I can pick who I want to defend on my blog. Drew Peterson is not a person I choose to defend.
DIVORCE NOT A NEW IDEA: DREW HAS BEEN PLANNING THE FILING ESSENTIALLY SINCE HER DISAPPEARANCE
Drew Peterson's wife, Stacy, disappeared last October 2007. Yesterday, there was talk about Drew wanting to file for divorce. Well, his idea of divorce is not all-of-a-sudden. In fact, he's been planning to file for divorce ever since Stacy vanished! In January 2008, just 3 months after she "ran off with another guy" (according to Drew), he tells The Herald News, "First we have to see if she shows up. Then I think we have to wait for a year." Again, he is planning the divorce just 90 days after the mother of his children disappears!
He then proceeds to tell the paper that he's interested in seeking legal advice from local divorce attorney Corri Fetman. 
Attorney Corri Fetman - photo courtesy of theinsider.com"If she wants to go out for drinks, give me a call." (Around the same time as the article, the beautiful Ms. Fetman was receiving national attention after she posed in Playboy magazine following her brilliant ad campaign "Life is short. Get a divorce.") His public request of her to "go out for drinks" does not convey a message that he's interested in legal services. I surely don't meet my prospective clients for drinks, nor do I socialize with them on any level. Bad for the image. She's not representing him - smart decision, Corri.
1-YEAR LATER: DREW MEETS WITH ATTORNEY SINCE HE'S BEEN "ABANDONED"
According to Fox News, Drew met with divorce attorney Jeffery Leving, who's known as the "Father's Rights" attorney on November 11, 2008. (Leving and I actually office in the same building!) Mr. Leving declined further comment other than to confirm that Drew was in his office. (Gee, I'm sorry I missed him!) 
Attorney Jeffery Leving - photo courtesy of lawcrossing.com
Drew wants to file for divorce on the basis of "abandonment."
First, there is a 1-year waiting period before abandonment can be alleged. This element is met because Stacy has been missing for over a year now.
Next, there are 2 parts to Drew's desire: 1) Dissolution of marriage, and 2) The authority to sell her property.
Dissolution of marriage, i.e. divorce: Drew must prove that Stacy "willfully" deserted him for one year. How is he going to prove "willful" - what evidence does he have that she ran off with another man? Surely, we have heard no reports of even a slight suspicion that Stacy WILLFULLY abandoned her family.
Authorization for him to sell her property: Drew wants to sell the house and other possessions in Stacy's name or that are jointly held. For the court to grant him the authority to take over her property, he must prove that Stacy abandoned him AND that she left the state. The law further requires that Drew must "set forth fully the facts" AND the court must be "satisfied of the necessity by the evidence."
How is any divorce attorney going to prove to a court that Stacy willfully deserted her family and left the state? His petition for dissolution and management of assets is going to be quite bleak when there are no leads of her whereabouts, no sightings, and no discussion of the mystery man. I would really love to see his FULLY set-forth statement of facts. Not allegations, FACTS.
DREW SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON CRIMINAL INDICTMENT, NOT DIVORCE
Rumor has it, Drew will be indicted shortly after a hearsay amendment passes this week that will allow into evidence Drew's confession to Stacy that he killed Kathleen. (She shared his confession with her pastor who will be able to testify on her behalf.) I previously wrote about this proposed law.
Drew should stop focusing on finding a divorce attorney and instead focus on his defense for her and/or Kathleen's murders. Also, his attorney, Joel Brodsky, should stop drumming up media attention because it only makes both him and his client look insincere and cold-hearted. (For example, Leving didn't tell the press he met with Drew; instead, Brodsky shared this info with the press. Isn't that a violation of attorney-client privilege?!?)
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (1)
Your analysis of Drew is spot on. He has to maintain his bullet proof demeanor as his only defense, as he is getting ready to go down on multiple homicides, and he could take others down with him. Thanks for following this case. breaking it down in terms of the law, and providing a most interesting and unique perspective as only a defense attorney can.