文章分類Article
Key to Lawsuit Over Partner's Extramarital Affairs and Sleeping with Mistress! - Court Practice Insi
Husband Spends 4 Hours with Mistress in Red Pajamas, Seeks Compensation but Loses Lawsuit?
A ruling worth discussing! A news excerpt from Taiwan’s Pingtung District Court Civil Judgment No. 733 of 2019 summarizes the case. The wife discovered on the dashcam footage that her husband (Defendant A) had visited the mistress (Defendant B) for three consecutive days. The husband also referred to the mistress as "wife" during a phone call. Additionally, the footage showed the husband staying overnight at the mistress's residence and leaving the next morning. On one occasion, the footage captured the mistress wearing a suit and greeting the husband at her place, and four hours later, she was seen in red pajamas seeing him off. The wife, angered by the discovery, filed a lawsuit for damages for the infringement of her spousal rights.
What is the court's view?
The plaintiff insists on presenting the footage, claiming that it clearly shows Defendant B wearing a red floral robe while bidding farewell. However, according to the court's findings, the footage only shows a woman in a red dress, which appears to be a skirt that reaches the thigh, with her face unclear. There is no indication that it is a floral red robe, as the plaintiff claims. Furthermore, based solely on the footage, even after comprehensive examination and analysis, it cannot prove the circumstances under which the two defendants spent over four hours at Defendant B's residence. The defense's argument appears reasonable, and thus, it is difficult to prove that the two defendants had any inappropriate romantic relationship. Regarding the plaintiff's claim that the footage from the dashcam shows the defendants staying overnight at Defendant B's residence from June 26 to 27, 2019, the court finds this claim unsubstantiated based on the examination of the footage.
As for the testimony of Witness D, even if it is true, it only confirms that Defendant A admitted to "doing something wrong" with Defendant B. However, what exactly does "doing wrong" refer to? Does it mean, as the plaintiff claims, that the two defendants had an inappropriate romantic relationship that infringed upon the plaintiff's spousal rights? Or does it refer to Defendant A neglecting his responsibilities as a husband? The testimony that Defendant A admitted to "doing something wrong" does not directly prove the existence of an inappropriate romantic relationship, as the two defendants continue to deny the allegations. Furthermore, Witness D, when questioned by the court, stated that they had never witnessed any inappropriate romantic behavior between the two defendants, so this testimony does not support the plaintiff's claim.
Although the plaintiff presented the dashcam footage, translated documents, and witness testimony in an attempt to prove that the defendants had an inappropriate romantic relationship that violated the plaintiff's spousal rights, the court could not find sufficient evidence to support this claim. In civil cases, the burden of proof does not require meeting the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard as in criminal trials, but it does require meeting the "preponderance of evidence" standard. After reviewing all the evidence, the court concluded that, while it was clear that Defendant A frequently contacted and visited Defendant B, and had stayed at Defendant B's house for over four hours, it could not be proven that the two defendants had an inappropriate romantic relationship as alleged by the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide specific details or sufficient evidence to support the claim that the defendants engaged in an "abnormal romantic relationship," which is required to establish the basis for claiming compensation for emotional damages due to an infringement of spousal rights. Therefore, the court could not support the plaintiff's claim for compensation based on the evidence presented.
What was the key to losing the case?
In the reasoning of this judgment, it is clear that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was insufficient to persuade the court. The court noted that while the plaintiff presented dashcam footage, translations, and witness testimony to prove that the husband and the mistress had an "inappropriate romantic relationship that exceeded general societal norms," the court found that the dashcam footage was unclear and did not rule out the possibility that other family members or friends were present in the house. Additionally, although the witness testimony was unfavorable to the husband and the mistress, the witness also admitted in court that they had never seen any inappropriate interactions between the husband and the mistress. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim.
In family law cases like this one, issues such as difficulty in collecting evidence and privacy concerns are common. If not handled properly, not only can it be impossible to prove in court, but it could also involve criminal offenses such as obstruction of secrecy. If you encounter similar issues, it is important to consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible!