The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed a divorce case where no third-party witness corroborated one year's continuous, uninterrupted living apart with one party intending to end the marriage. Belle v. Belle, unpub. 1/19/16.
“No divorce, annulment, or affirmation of a marriage shall be granted on the uncorroborated testimony of the parties or either of them.” Code § 20-99(1).
The Court DOES NOT say that there must always be a third-party witness; rather, it points out how the particular documents introduced in this case are not sufficient.Indeed, it quotes authority saying it does NOT need to be from witnesses. However, the deficiencies it points out in the documents give grounds for grave doubt about trying to corroborate any divorce case with documents alone.
Both parties had asked the court to divorce them. Evidence in the case "included medical and credit card bills, employment documents and pay stubs, criminal records, records from the Department of Motor Vehicles, .. tax returns ... protective orders, an arrest warrant, and a summons ...."
... wife argued that the income tax documents, pay stubs, and medical bills introduced into evidence established that the parties had continuously lived at different residences during the one-year period preceding the circuit court’s entry of the final decree of divorce. Wife claimed that this evidence sufficiently corroborated the grounds for divorce ...
... At most, however, those documents only corroborated that the parties lived at separate residences. Standing alone, evidence that parties have lived at separate residences does not establish that the parties intended to end their marriage at the time of their separation.
...The parties must prove that at least one of them intended “to discontinue permanently the marital cohabitation” at the time of their physical separation. Hooker v. Hooker, 215 Va. 415, 417, 211 S.E.2d 34, 36 (1975). The parties must establish that they separated with the intent to permanently end their marriage.
... Moreover, the exhibits themselves failed to establish that the parties had lived at separate residences continuously for one year. While the exhibits corroborated that husband had lived at the marital residence throughout the parties’ separation, they only established that wife had lived at her residence for approximately six months ...
But what is corroboration?
The question of corroboration is one of fact, the decision of which in each case depends upon the peculiar facts of that particular case. It is not necessary that the testimony of the complaining spouse be corroborated on every element or essential charge stated as a ground for divorce. The corroborative testimony need not be sufficient, standing alone, to prove the alleged ground for divorce. . . . The general rule is that where a particular fact or circumstance is vital to [the] complainant’s case, some evidence of the same, in addition to the complainant’s own testimony, is essential. The main object of the provision of the statute requiring corroboration is to prevent collusion. Where it is apparent that there is no collusion, the corroboration needs to be only slight. . . . [Additionally, corroboration] need not rest in the testimony of witnesses but may be furnished by surrounding circumstances adequately established. Graves v. Graves, 193 Va. 659, 661-62, 70 S.E.2d 339, 340-41 (1952) (emphasis added) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Dodge v. Dodge, 2 Va. App. 238, 245-46, 343 S.E.2d 363, 367 (1986).
Though they don't seem crucial to the outcome, the Court notes some facts that may give it additional cause to be skeptical and to see good reason for requiring corroboration of something more than sometimes having two different addresses:
Wife also testified that the parties attempted to reconcile during the year following their initial separation and that they maintained a sexual relationship for almost three years.
...
While wife sought several protective orders against husband, the last order that she sought was voluntarily dismissed due to the parties’ attempted reconciliation. Thus, the documents in the record pertaining to the protective orders do not imply that either party intended to end the marriage.