In a recent courtroom hearing, a witness named Nathan Wade took the stand to testify in a divorce case. Wade, who had previously been friends with the opposing counsel, filed a motion to disqualify her from the case. The proceedings began with a discussion about Wade's previous support for the counsel when she ran for judge in 2016. However, the judge quickly intervened, stating that personal opinions were not relevant to the case.
The focus of the hearing then shifted to Wade's divorce proceedings and his responses to interrogatories. Interrogatories are questions posed by one party to the other, and the responding party must answer them under oath. Wade confirmed that he had answered interrogatories in December 2021, stating that he did not have any documents related to the purchase of gifts for someone other than his wife.
The opposing counsel presented Wade with his divorce complaint, the verification, and the interrogatories as evidence. Wade acknowledged their accuracy and confirmed that they were filed in his divorce case. The judge admitted these documents into evidence without objection.
The opposing counsel proceeded to question Wade about his subsequent updates to the interrogatories. She pointed out that in May 2023, Wade once again stated that he had no documents related to the purchase of gifts for someone he had a romantic relationship with. However, in January 2024, Wade changed his response and asserted privilege under 24-5-505.
The opposing counsel also highlighted Wade's previous contempt of court ruling in May 2023 for failing to provide answers and documents during the divorce proceedings. She argued that this ruling was relevant to Wade's credibility. However, the judge sustained the objection, stating that contempt alone does not constitute a false act.
The article concludes with a discussion about Wade's updated responses to the interrogatories, where he changed his previous answers. The opposing counsel questioned the timing of these updates, which occurred after she filed a motion to disqualify Wade and alleged a romantic relationship between him and another party involved in the case.
The courtroom proceedings shed light on the evolving nature of Wade's responses to interrogatories and raised questions about his credibility. The judge will ultimately determine the relevance of these updates and their impact on the divorce case.
