New York Court Grants Same Sex Divorce

A New York judge has ruled recently in C.M. v. C.C. (Sup. Ct. New York Co. October 14, 2008), that the New York court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce to a same sex couple who were married in Massachussetts. The court held that in following Martinez v. County of Monroe and other cases dealing with recognition of the same sex marriage, it had the subject marriage jurisdiction and the divorce case between two women could continue. The couple can now obtain their divorce in New York, assuming that they have sufficient grounds to do so, and meet other jurisdictional requirements of New York’s Domestic Relations Law.

I have previously written about Martinez v. County of Monroe, so this decision is merely a logical extension of that decision.

Family Court Lacks Power to Modify Maintenance Provision in Separation Agreement

In a recent decision, Johna M.S. v. Russell E.S., the Court of Appeals held that the Family Court lacks power to modify maintenance provisions contained in the parties’ separation agreement. The separation agreement that the wife and the husband both signed, explicitly stated that the wife is “completely disabled” and will be in need of maintenance “for the remainder of her life”. The agreement provided for current maintenance payments of $100.00 per week payable to the wife and recited that this being only a determination of her “present” need and his “present” economic circumstances. It further stated that the wife could if need be seek a “modification” of those sums in a “de novo” proceeding in a court of “appropriate jurisdiction”. A divided Court of Appeals held that the Family Court is not such an “appropriate” court and that in respect of spousal (as opposed to child) maintenance, family court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of a “modification”.

The Court pointed out that there was no risk that the wife would become a public charge. According to the Court of Appeals, the danger of a spouse becoming a public charge is the only circumstance in which, under Family Court Act § 463, the Family Court can modify a separation agreement when the matrimonial action has not been brought as of yet.

A key factor in Johna M.S. was that Family Court lacks “equity” jurisdiction. As Judge Smith points out in his dissent, the prior cases held that Family Court’s attempt to “modify” such a separation agreement amounts to a kind of “reformation or rescission”, which are equitable remedies: they seek to alter the parties’ agreement and there was no effort by the wife to do that here. On the contrary, the agreement itself contemplated modification, wholly negating the “equity” analogy. As a result, the disabled wife’s only choice is to either accept maintenance of $100.00 per week as permanent, or to sue in supreme court for a divorce or separation, where she will be able to seek a greater amount of maintenance.