781.708.4445

wmlevine@levinedisputeresolution.com

Divorce Mediation Blog

Pre-marital Cohabitation in Defining Marital Length Clarified

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

But, In Rejecting Normalized Income for Alimony & Accepting Early Valuation Date:
Why won’t the Appeals Court tell us what they really think?
BORTOLOTTI V. BORTOLLOTTI - Part. 1


Levine Dispute Resolution - Alimony

We have previously lamented the shortcomings of Massachusetts Appeals Court’s Rule 1:28 opinion practice, and the recent Bortollotti v. Bortollotti has us at it again, but that will have to wait until Part 2.


Today, instead, we focus on the court’s helpful clarification of the legislature’s provision that tasks trial judges with determining if and when a marriage may be construed to begin before its legal registration, for purposes of calculating the length of marriage, and the resulting presumed durational limit calculated under M.G.L., ch, 208, § 48. When we say it is helpful, it is not to say that we agree or disagree with the concept, but rather, that, like a puzzle part, it fills a gap that makes the statute more understandable and, therefore, more predictable in outcome.

The concept of a de facto relationship giving rise to an obligation normally associated with a legal one preceded the Alimony Reform Act (“ARA”), beginning with California cases involving child support by estoppel (obligations arising from unrelated-party voluntary undertakings and resulting reliance), to pre-marital contribution in equitable division cases (see, Liebson v. Liebson and Moriarty v. Stone) and, more recently and directly on point, judges’ grappling with the inequities of same sex couples who were divorcing after long relationships and fact-based economic unions, but to whom marriage was foreclosed until implementation of 2005’s Goodridge decision.

In ARA, the legislature expanded the notion to all marriages in the alimony context.

Section 48 allows the trial court to back-date the start of marriage for a “significant marital cohabitation that includes ‘economic marital partnership’”, per Bortollotti. In this case, the trial judge found that the parties had, in fact, cohabited before legal marriage, but that the wife had not contributed income to the partnership, therefore, an economic marital partnership did not exist.

With logic more parallel to actual marriage, and historic alimony law, the Appeals Court reversed, stating that the wife’s very economic dependence signified that the marital partnership had begun. They reconciled three ARA features: the enumerated criteria for awarding alimony; the “common household” needed to trigger a payor’s post-divorce right to demand redress; and the pre-marital issue, here.

Since economic dependence is one of the enumerated alimony factors, the appellate court reasoned, it will suffice to extend the length of marriage retrospectively, for alimony’s presumed durational limit purposes.

The holding is fairly simple. It will apply to many cases, sometimes with minor, and other time substantial effect. The most extreme, obviously, will be when this metric leads to a finding that a 19 ½-year marriage was preceded by a more than 6-month cohabitation with economic dependency, stripping the payor of any presumed durational limit whatsoever, especially where the payor is more than 16 years shy of full social security retirement age. We can expect that this aspect of those cases to be most hotly contested.

The next time, Rule 1:28 and why the rest of Bortollotti is frustratingly sparse.



Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:



Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles


recent posts


tags

MLB labor agreement divorce mediations Divorce divorce mediators divorce and family law mediators family and probate law disputes Massachusetts alimony and child support resolve disputes alimony orders traditional negotiations Uniform Arbitration Act private dispute resolution self-adjusting alimony alimony law family law arbitrators Baseball Players IRC §2704 divorce mediator divorce arbitrators med-arb Baseball Arbitration family law mediation Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act Major League Baseball Arbitration Baseball Matrimonial Arbitration mediators Chouteau Levine fraud child support Massachusetts divorce mediators Self-adjusting alimony orders dispute resolution alimony Cohabitation family law mediation Same Sex Marriage LDRC DOMA rehabilitative alimony Levine Dispute Resolution Center LLC medical benefits divorce agreement lawyer arbitration Divorce Agreements Levine Dispute Resolutions Massachusetts lawyers mediator divorce litigation conciliation special master Boston arbitrators Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth separation divorced divorce arbitration divorce mediation high-risk methodology support orders divorce lawyers family mediation Massachusetts alimony family support The Seven Sins of Alimony arbitrator Alimony Reform Act family law arbitrator Family Law Arbitration mediations divorce process alimony statute Defense of Marriage Act Massachusetts divorce lawyers health insurance Levine Dispute Resolution General term alimony how baseball arbitration works alimony reform legislation Obamacare lawyers annulment facilitated negotiations disputes health coverage Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly SJC COLA med/arb litigation lawyer-attended mediation divorce and family law Levine Dispute Resolution Center divorce arbitrator pre-ARA alimony Child Support Guidelines Massachusetts divorce judgment