I am the OP from years ago. I have lost touch with the person in my OP scenario, (or more honestly; I have cut off contact for a variety of reasons) so I have no idea if she was able to recieve an annulment or not.
My opinion; annulments should be a one-off deal with only a few very rare exceptions. I don't think the marriage of the aforementioned woman should be annuled. Divorce is another matter altogether, but it isn't an ecclesiastical one. Her then husband even converted to Catholocism in order to have their marriage blessed per her wishes. The accusation that he didn't fulfill his vows doesn't exactly hold water when you make it whilst living with (and sharing a bed with) another man. Both parties didn't exactly fulfill their vows. My understanding is that an annulment is in essence saying that the marriage shouldn't have taken place and the error was an unforeseen one. If you recieve an annulment because one person doesn't fufill their vows, it seems to declare that the person granted the annulment actually did fufill their vows and I can't say that is true for either party in my OP scenario. The issue should be whether each party entered into marriage intending to fufill their vows rather than retroactively judging who actually did so.