[quote="Just_Lurking, post:13, topic:294990"]
No, but good guess. Here is the situation in more detail:
Say Alice and Bob get married and then get divorced. Let's say that Alice did not give proper consent, and that she has uncontestable proof of this fact. Thus, the marriage was/is null. Today, Alice can file for an annulment based on her defective consent. However, prior to the American Procedural Norms of the 1970's, Alice was not allowed to file for annulment on this basis. Instead, she would have to convince Bob, as the "innocent" party, to petition for the annulment. If Bob did not want the annulment, he could block it by refusing to be the petitioner.
Aah. Got it. OK, but that's a different story: it's not that "back then, both parties had to want to get the annulment", but rather, "only the 'innocent' party could file for the annulment." In your example, if Bob were the one who wanted the annulment and Alice did not, then she would have no standing to attempt to 'block' the annulment. So, it's not the case that both parties had to be in favor of the annulment in order for it to proceed. ;)
(And, of course, in your example, it's not the case that Alice can't proceed, but rather, that she can't proceed on those grounds. Her advocate, then, might attempt to determine whether there are any other reasonable grounds (that is, grounds with respect to which Alice is the innocent party), and then file on those grounds.)