O'Reilly-Morshead v. O'Reilly-Morshead
19 N.Y.S.3d 689
N.Y. Sup. Ct.2015Background
- Parties entered a Vermont civil union in June 2003, later married in Canada in 2006, and lived in New York; divorce was filed in New York in 2011.
- Plaintiff purchased a Rochester house in 2004 in her name with her own funds; she claims those funds were separate property and the defendant was not on the deed.
- Defendant sought dissolution of the Vermont civil union and requested distribution of property accrued during the civil union period under Vermont principles; plaintiff argued New York equitable distribution begins only at date of marriage.
- New York courts have equitable power to dissolve out-of-state civil unions but New York Domestic Relations Law defines "marital property" as property acquired during the marriage (date-of-marriage rule).
- Court considered comity, contract (center-of-gravity), and Morone-related express-contract arguments but emphasized legislative primacy over altering New York's marital-property regime.
- Court dissolved the civil union but held New York equitable distribution does not reach property acquired during the civil union before the date of marriage; any civil-union-based property remedies must come from Vermont or legislation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New York may treat a Vermont civil union as the start date for marital property accrual | Plaintiff: marital property begins at date of marriage under DRL §236(B); civil-union period is not "marriage" for distribution | Defendant: Vermont civil union conferred marriage-like economic partnership; comity/statutory evolution in Vermont means property should accrue from civil-union date | Held: No — New York's statute fixes marital-property accrual at date of marriage; civil union does not trigger DRL marital-property rights |
| Whether New York must apply Vermont law (or dissolve civil union and apply Vermont distribution) when dissolving an out-of-state civil union | Plaintiff: New York need not import Vermont property rules; equitable distribution limited to marriages recognized for DRL purposes | Defendant: Comity and contract principles require recognition of Vermont-created property rights | Held: Court can dissolve the civil union but will not apply Vermont property-distribution rules for DRL equitable distribution; comity does not override DRL scheme |
| Whether the Vermont civil union is an enforceable express contract in New York permitting contract-based distribution remedies | Plaintiff: Even if contract-like, New York statutory marital-distribution scheme controls and precludes importing such remedies | Defendant: Civil union is a statutory, non-amorphous agreement enforceable as an express contract under Morone principles | Held: Court declines to grant contractual equitable-distribution remedy under New York law; legislative action required to extend DRL rights to civil unions |
| Whether constitutional or Full Faith & Credit principles compel recognition of civil-union property as marital property in New York | Plaintiff: NY law consistent with constitutional limits; legislature may define scope of marital rights | Defendant: Denial would be inequitable and possibly constitutionally suspect | Held: No constitutional or FFC compulsion to treat civil union as marriage for DRL distribution; legislature may change law but court will not |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. O'Brien, 66 NY2d 576 (NY 1985) (marriage is statutory touchstone for equitable distribution; marital property is a creature of statute)
- Fields v. Fields, 15 NY3d 158 (NY 2010) (reiterates that property acquired after marriage is categorized as marital property)
- Debra H. v. Janice R., 14 NY3d 576 (NY 2010) (recognized comity for civil-union parentage but limited ruling to parentage; warned against broad property implications)
- Morone v. Morone, 50 NY2d 481 (NY 1980) (New York allows enforcement of express agreements between cohabitants but rejects amorphous implied palimony claims)
- Mesholam v. Mesholam, 11 NY3d 24 (NY 2008) (definition of marital property focuses on date of acquisition during marriage)
- Price v. Price, 69 NY2d 8 (NY 1986) ("broad interpretation" of "property" in equitable distribution cases but does not alter statutory date-of-marriage rule)
- Dickerson v. Thompson, 88 AD3d 121 (App. Div. 2011) (New York courts may dissolve out-of-state civil unions under equitable jurisdiction)