LogFAQs > #979976726

I can kind of understand the rationale of the judge not rescinding the divorce just because the lawyers said they'd made a mistake, since that's a big decision to make without consulting the affected parties (though so is finalizing the divorce in the first place, so maybe that's where the extra scrutiny actually belongs), but doubling down on that when the affected parties are contesting the decision is indeed pretty weird. I get the vibe that the judge is using this as a protest against computer-based filing, as sort of a "look what your newfangled technology did, now I'm going to make you live with it."

SinisterSlay posted...

I'm not sure what the consequences are though. Can't you just go back to a judge, maybe a smarter one, and get married again? If you didn't actually mean to divorce then no one is arguing over assets or anything.

While it doesn't actually say it in the article, the fact that they only talk about Mrs. Williams petitioning for the decision to be reversed gives me the impression that the affected couple were in the process of getting a divorce of their own, and this order finalized it before everything had been sorted out (most likely in a state favouring Mr. Williams, given his lack of protest). I don't think it's a matter of just accidentally divorcing a happily married couple who could just get married again (possibly with the law firm footing the bill for the new certificate).