The concept underlying connivance as a defense to marital misconduct is that a spouse who has connived in, arranged or consented to the other spouse's marital misconduct should not then be able to divorce on the basis of that misconduct. The essential element to establishing a defense based on connivance is the implied consent of the petitioning spouse. Provocation is conduct on the part of the spouse filing for divorce that would reasonably be expected to incite an act of misconduct by the defendant spouse in response. A lengthy delay in bringing suit, which can allow evidence to become stale or otherwise unavailable, may bar a divorce on fault grounds. A small number of states have a statute of limitations on fault divorce actions.
Some states have general statutes of limitation that can be applied to divorce actions.
Thus, if Anita sues for a fault divorce based on the claim that Jim had an adulterous relationship many years ago, Jim may assert the defense that the delay in bringing suit bars Anita from divorcing on the grounds of that adulterous relationship. If both parties to a fault divorce are found guilty of marital misconduct in Utah or Arkansas, the doctrine of comparative rectitude will allow the grant of a fault divorce to the party judged guilty of lesser fault. Work with an experienced lawyer in your state.