Duff-Kareores v. Kareores
474 Mass. 528
| Mass. | 2016Background
- Ellen and Christopher Kareores married in 1995, had two children, divorced in 2004 (separation agreement incorporated into judgment) with Christopher ordered to pay $7,600/month alimony.
- Christopher moved back into the family home in May 2007; the parties cohabited until they remarried in December 2012, then separated soon after; Ellen filed for divorce June 2013 and served Christopher July 2013.
- During the 2007–2012 cohabitation Christopher continued making payments consistent with the prior alimony order; parties presented as a family, shared daily life, and Christopher was primary wage earner while Ellen was primary caretaker.
- At second divorce trial the Probate judge treated the parties’ “length of the marriage” as 18 years by including: (1) the first marriage period (≈7.8 years), (2) the cohabitation period (≈5.2 years), and (3) the short second marriage (6 months); judge awarded general term alimony for 14 years.
- Appeals issue: whether G. L. c. 208, § 48 permits including (a) pre‑marriage cohabitation when an economic marital partnership existed, and (b) the earlier divorced marriage plus the intervening noncohabiting period, in computing the length of marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ellen) | Defendant's Argument (Christopher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cohabitation before remarriage can be added to "length of the marriage" under G. L. c. 208, § 48 | §48 allows increasing marriage length where an economic marital partnership began during cohabitation; include 2007–2012 period | Cohabitation here was no more than a landlord‑tenant or alimony recipient arrangement; court order payments cannot create an economic marital partnership | Court: Yes — judge properly included the 2007–2012 cohabitation because findings show a common household and economic marital partnership (factors from §49(d)(1)) |
| Whether the earlier (first) marriage period may be included in computing overall length | First marriage should be counted; it was a legal marriage and part of continuous relationship | Inclusion barred by separation agreement waiver or should be limited because parties were divorced in between | Court: Yes — first marriage period is properly included; statute doesn’t forbid counting earlier legal marriage periods and excluding a prior legal marriage would be absurd |
| Whether the period between first divorce (2003) and the start of cohabitation (2007) may be included | That period is part of an 18‑year continuous relationship and may be counted toward length | That interval lacked cohabitation/common household/economic partnership and should be excluded | Court: No — that ~50‑month noncohabiting period cannot be included absent evidence of an economic marital partnership; judge erred including it |
| Whether judge could instead justify alimony award by deviating from presumptive limits | Even if excluded period removed, judge could deviate under §53(e) based on health, lost opportunity, etc. | Deviation not applicable; length miscalculated controls award | Court: No — deviations under §53(e) affect amount/duration, not the independent statutory calculation of ‘‘length of the marriage’’; judge made no written deviation findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Pierce, 455 Mass. 286 (discusses purpose of alimony to preserve premarital lifestyle)
- Charron v. Amaral, 451 Mass. 767 (distinguishes cohabitation from legal marriage)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 467 Mass. 653 (interpretation of Alimony Reform Act and deviation standard)
- Zaleski v. Zaleski, 469 Mass. 230 (judge's discretion under Alimony Reform Act)
- Chin v. Merriot, 470 Mass. 527 (statutory interpretation and application of Alimony Reform Act)
- Flemings v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 431 Mass. 374 (avoiding absurd statutory constructions)
- Passemato v. Passemato, 427 Mass. 52 (post‑high school educational support generally premature)