New Hampshire Family Law Blog : New Hampshire Divorce Lawyer & Attorney : Crusco Law Firm : Family Law, Custody, Child Support : Manchester, New Hampshire, Massachusetts

A premarital agreement, also called antenuptial agreement, is a written contract entered into in contemplation of marriage. A prenup can protect your separate property and address the division of assets in the event of divorce or death of a spouse. Findlaw has a short article listing the top 10 reasons a premarital agreement may be found invalid. The original article has more details on each point that is worth reading through, but here are the reasons in short that a prenup may be invalidated:

1. NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT
2. NOT PROPERLY EXECUTED. 
3. YOU WERE PRESSURED. 
4. YOU DIDN'T READ IT.
5. NO TIME FOR CONSIDERATION. 
6. INVALID PROVISIONS. 
7. FALSE INFORMATION. 
8. INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. 
9. NO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.
10. UNCONSCIONABILITY.  

Each state has very specific laws about prenuptial agreements. In New Hampshire, a prenup is generally presumed to be valid unless a party proves circumstances such as 1) fraud, undue influence, duress; 2) failure to disclose a material fact; 3) that the agreement is unconscionable; 4) or circumstances have rendered it unfair. In order to protect the validity of any prenup, parties desiring a prenuptial agreement should contact a seasoned New Hampshire attorney.

Source: Attorney Stephen Worrall's Georgia Family Law Blog post "Top Ten Reasons a Premarital Agreement May be Invalid"

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

With the same-sex marriage bill about to come to Governor Lynch’s desk, it is an appropriate time to examine the future of fault grounds in New Hampshire. Currently, New Hampshire has both fault and no-fault grounds for divorce. Only about 1% of divorces in New Hampshire are granted on the basis of fault. Of the nine fault grounds, adultery is the most common.

Adultery in New Hampshire has a very narrow definition. For the purposes of the fault ground statute, under the Blanchflower decision,

“the term “adultery” excludes all non-coital sex acts, whether between persons of the same or opposite gender. The only distinction is that person of the same gender cannot, by definition, engage in the one act that constitutes adultery under the state.”

Furthermore, the court rejected the notion that it should expand the definition of adultery to include sexual acts other than intercourse between a man and a woman because doing so would revise the established definition of adultery beyond recognition, and “it is not the function of the judiciary to provide for present needs by an extension of past legislation.”

I was before a marital master on a temporary hearing the other day, and when the issue of fault grounds came up, he pointed out that if same-sex marriage becomes law, there will be married same-sex couples who, by virtue of their sexuality, cannot commit adultery according to the law (unless they were to cheat with an opposite-sex partner). It is an interesting predicament, and something that the legislature will need to address. The legislature will need to either revise the definition of adultery to include an expanded array of sexual acts between same-sex or opposite-sex couples, or abolish fault grounds all together. Many family law attorneys would argue for the later, pointing out that fault ground divorces cost more, take longer and interfere with parents moving forward with a good co-parenting relationship. Either way, it is time for the legislature to take action on the issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (1)

This week the New Hampshire House will vote on HB 436, a bill that would legalize same sex marriage in New Hampshire and allow any civil unioned couples to obtain the legal status of marriage. Currently, Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only states that allow same sex marriage. Several states, including New Hampshire, allow same sex couples to enter into civil unions. According to a recent article in the Union Leader, Govenor Lynch, who supported civil unions, opposes gay marriage.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

I read a post today that got me thinking from Attorney Ryan McKeen at his A Connecticut Law Blog titled Is CT's civil union statute constitutional? Attorney McKeen ponders whether the civil union statute in Connecticut is unconstituional because it does not allow opposite sex couples to enter into a civil union. It is an interesting question that may never be answered. It also begs the question, should there be some form of civil union for opposite sex couples?

If an unmarried, homeowning couple with a child breaks up, the complexity of disentangling after the relationship ends can be frustrating. If the couple cannot agree on how to separate their property and how to parent their child, they would have to go to three different courts to resolve all the issues. The couple would head to Superior Court or the Family Division for parenting and child support, to Probate Court to resolve the home issue, and file an equity action in Superior Court regarding any disputed personal property such as a family pet.

Wouldn't some kind of legal relationship the couple could enter into make the breakup easier on the family? At the same time, opposite sex couples do have the option to marry and benefit from the rights that marriage entails, but they choose not to. What do you think?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Today the Connecticut Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in Kerrigan v. Commisioner of Public Health. Four years ago, eight same-sex couples sued the state of Connecticut, arguing that the statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage violated their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The trial court held that because the state allowed civil unions, the plaintiffs had not suffered a "constitutionally cognizable harm", and therefore found for the state.

In finding for the plaintiffs on appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that:

in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.

 The Kerrigan ruling makes Connecticut the third state in the country, after Massachusetts (Goodridge) and California (In Re Marriage Cases) to allow same-sex marriage. Here in New Hampshire, the state has allowed for civil unions since January 1, 2008, and is one of nine states to offer some degree of domestic partnership or civil union.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued the Goodridge decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth, many people inside and outside the state became concerned about couples coming from other states to marry in Massachusetts. In the first few days of same-sex marriage, marriage licenses were issued to non-residents, and have resulted in decisions such as Chambers v. Ormiston which held that Rhode Island courts did not have jurisdiction to hear a divorce case between two people of the same-sex because the state did not recognize the marriage.   

However, Governor Mitt Romney quickly dusted off the Marriage Evasion Act M.G.L.A. 207 § 11. This law was enacted in 1913 and prohibits the marriage of a non-resident in Massachusetts if the marriage would be illegal in their home state. Governor Romney ordered town clerks to strictly enforce the law when handing out marriage licenses.

The original intent of the law is unknown for there is no record of the legislative history. However, the law was enacted during a time when the majority of states (30 out of 48) outlawed interracial marriage, and it is commonly believed that this law was meant to smooth relations between Massachusetts, which has allowed interracial marriage since 1843, and those states that banned such marriages. Massachusetts State Senator Harry Ney Stearns sponsored the 1913 Law on March 7, 1913 and the bill was signed three weeks later by Governor Eugene N. Foss

On July 15, 2008 the Massachusetts Senate voted to approve a bill that will repeal the 1913 law and the House is expected to vote in the near future. Repealing the law paves the way for out-of-state same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts. Opponents argue that repealing the law meddles in the internal affairs of other states, forcing them to recognize gay marriage, and creates a legal limbo for families. On the other hand, proponents argue that the law should be repealed as a “vile and antiquated remnant of prejudice and bigotry.”

How will the repeal of this bill affect New Hampshire residents? As previously discussed on this blog, New Hampshire allows civil unions and recognizes out-of-state marriages as civil unions. If the Massachusetts house votes to repeal the law, New Hampshire residents may marry in Massachusetts, and return home to have their marriage recognized as a civil union.

There are many in-depth articles chronicling the path of Massachusetts in repealing this law and its effect on same-sex marriage. Some of these articles are below:

·         A 1913 Law Dies to Better Serve Gay Marriages

·         Will the State of Massachusetts Ever Permit Same Sex Out-of-Staters to Marry?

·         Massachusetts Senate Votes to Repeal Law Barring Out-of-State Couples From Marrying

·         Senate Votes to Repeal 1913 Law

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion in the case of Charron v. Amaral that held that marriage benefits for same-sex couples do not apply retroactively to the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health  decision.

The case involves a couple, Michelle Charron and Cynthia Kalish, who began dating in 1990, moved in together in 1992 and subsequently bought a house together and had a child that both partners adopted. The couple also exchanged rings in a private ceremony in 1994 and obtained a marriage license in 2004 on the first day such licenses were available to same-sex couples. Charron sought treatment for a lump in her breast in 2002, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003 and died in 2006. The claim arose as a malpractice case for loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs argued that, but for the ban on gay marriage, they would have been married at the time the malpractice claim arose in 2002, and therefore the loss of consortium claim should be applied retroactive to the Goodridge decision. The SJC disagreed, and held that it was clear that Goodridge was intended to apply prospectively because it was such a radical change in the law that it required time for the legislature to act. Furthermore, the court found that:

to allow Kalish to recover for a loss of consortium if she can prove she would have been married but for the ban on same-sex marriage could open numbers of cases in all areas of law to the same argument.

Although this case involves a malpractice/loss of consortium claim, the opinion has ramifications for divorce matters in Massachusetts. It is likely that, as a result of the Charron decision, same-sex couples who are divorcing will be barred from arguing that but for the ban on same-sex marriage, the couple would have had a long term marriage retroactive to Goodridge. The difference between a long term marriage and a short term marriage can have ramifications on the property division and alimony awards.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

The New Hampshire Supreme Court released an opinion on June 3, In Re Estate of David J. Bourassa that clarified the requirements for Common Law Marriage in New Hampshire. The relevant Statute is RSA 457:39. New Hampshire does not recognize common law marriage. However, what the State may recognize is what can be considered a common law marriage by death. The requirements are in three parts:

1. Cohabitate for 3 or more years preceding death of one partner; and
2. Acknowledge one another as husband and wife; and
3. Generally presumed to be husband and wife in the community

This means that a cohabitating couple who is not legally married who have been together for 3 or more years and hold themselves out to be husband and wife are considered legally married upon the death of one partner. It is the death of one partner which triggers the statute if all other elements are satisfied. A couple who simply cohabitate for 3 or more years is not considered legally married under the law.

In the Bourassa case, the couple, David and Deborah, had cohabitated for 10+ years and had one child together. When David died Deborah filed a petition to be declared David’s common law spouse. The Court determined that Deborah had failed to show that she and the deceased fulfilled the last two prongs of the statute. They had not acknowledged or generally been presumed to be married. On the contrary, they were very vocal in making sure everyone knew they were not married.

Blog Credit: Marisa L. Ulloa, Crusco Law Office Law Clerk

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Today the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in a 4-3 ruling. The court’s ruling stated that “the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes.” Instead, the question the Court answered was whether the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage instead of the state recognized domestic partnership violates the California Constitution. The Court found that it did.

The decision and its dissents is 172 pages, so there is a lot to digest. I will post more after I have been able to  read through it in full. In the meantime, to read the opinion yourself, you can find it here. There are also posts through the blogosphere today on the issue, including here at Steven Ballard's Massachusetts Divorce & Family Law Blog, here at Family Law Prof Blog, and here at Jeffrey Lalloway's California Divorce and Family Law Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks