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

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