Caffyn v. Caffyn
2004 Mass. LEXIS 212, 441 Mass. 487, 806 N.E.2d 415 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of establishing subject matter jurisdiction for a no-fault divorce under G. L. c. 208, § 5, a plaintiff who has not met the one-year residency requirement may satisfy the alternative prong by proving they are domiciled in Massachusetts and that the 'cause' for divorce—an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage—occurred within the Commonwealth based on their subjective determination.
Facts:
- Leslie A. Caffyn (wife) and Brian E. Caffyn (husband) were married in Massachusetts in 1987 but subsequently lived in Connecticut, Illinois, California, and most recently, Italy.
- Throughout the marriage, the parties maintained ties to Massachusetts, including a joint bank account, pediatricians for their two children, and yearly holiday and summer visits.
- In June 2002, the wife moved from Italy to Massachusetts with the children, having arranged to ship the family's belongings and transfer the children's educational records there.
- After arriving in Massachusetts, the wife opened a personal bank account.
- In the late summer of 2002, the parties attempted a reconciliation in Massachusetts, during which they jointly purchased a residence in Wellesley and the husband purchased a car in Massachusetts for the wife and children's use.
- By September 2002, the reconciliation attempts in Massachusetts had failed.
Procedural Posture:
- Leslie A. Caffyn (wife) filed a complaint for divorce in the Norfolk County Probate and Family Court, the trial court of first instance.
- Brian E. Caffyn (husband) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The Probate and Family Court judge denied the husband's motion to dismiss.
- The husband petitioned the Appeals Court, an intermediate appellate court, for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the denial.
- A single justice of the Appeals Court granted the husband leave to file an interlocutory appeal limited to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Judicial Court, the state's highest court, transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion before the appeal was heard there.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for a no-fault divorce under G. L. c. 208, § 5, by establishing domicil in Massachusetts and subjectively determining that the 'cause' for divorce—an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage—occurred within the Commonwealth, even if the plaintiff has not resided in the state for the preceding year?
Opinions:
Majority - Ireland, J.
Yes. A plaintiff may satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of G. L. c. 208, § 5 by making a subjective determination that the marriage became irretrievably broken within the Commonwealth, provided the plaintiff is domiciled there. The court reasoned that the statutory term 'cause' includes 'an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage,' which is an inherently subjective concept that does not require an objective, provable event. The Legislature's adoption of no-fault divorce recognized that parties should be free to make personal, subjective decisions about their marriage without excessive state control. The wife successfully proved domicil through objective evidence such as purchasing a home, registering a car, and transferring records, which was further supported by the husband's participation. The court held that this subjective standard is balanced by safeguards that prevent forum shopping, namely the requirement to prove objective domicil, the requirement that the plaintiff did not move to the state solely to obtain a divorce, and a statutory six-month waiting period for a hearing.
Analysis:
This decision modernizes the interpretation of an old jurisdictional statute by aligning it with contemporary no-fault divorce principles. It establishes that the 'location' of a marriage's breakdown can be based on a party's subjective mental state, rather than a specific, objective event. This lowers the jurisdictional barrier for new residents of Massachusetts to file for divorce, allowing them to proceed without meeting the one-year residency requirement, provided they can prove domicil and credibly claim the breakdown occurred post-domicil. The case reinforces the distinction between the objective factors required to establish domicil and the subjective nature of what constitutes an 'irretrievable breakdown' of a marriage.
