.webp)
.png)
As we have seen time and again on our blog, even a seemingly “airtight” or exceedingly straightforward rule may be challenged or questioned when certain circumstances develop. The contours of legal rules are rarely ever known completely in advance, only through the application of legal rules to factual situations can those contours be filled out. This is where having a qualified family law attorney can be so valuable: attorneys are skilled in identifying the sorts of things which are inside or outside the bounds of legal rules.
One rule in Maryland family law which seems to be relatively straightforward is the voluntary separation requirement which is needed to attain an absolute divorce decree. Under FL § 7-103(a)(4), a party is entitled to an absolute divorce on the ground of voluntary separation when the parties have lived apart continuously for at least 12 months, and there is no interruption during this period through cohabitation. This seems clear enough, but what precisely constitutes an interruption through cohabitation? In the case of Bergeris v. Bergeris (2014), a wife argued that explicit telephone conversations during this 12 month period constituted “cohabitation” such that the husband was disqualified from attaining an absolute divorce. Let’s examine this case in detail.
Factual Background of the Case
The parties in this case married in 2006, and by 2010 they had separated. The wife filed for and obtained a protective order against the husband, and so the parties never resided together after this initial separation in 2010. However, although the parties did maintain separate residences post-2010, the parties continued to have a (sporadic) physical relationship after 2010. But, after March of 2011, the parties never had a physical relationship of any kind; the husband actually refused to see the wife when she appeared unannounced at his residence prior to March of 2011.
In late March of 2012, the husband filed an amended petition for absolute divorce. The husband had already filed for limited divorce earlier, but believed as of March of 2012 that he could obtain an absolute divorce pursuant to FL § 7-103(a)(4). The wife opposed this new complaint, arguing that the requirements for voluntary separation hadn’t been satisfied because the parties had engaged in sexual relations via telephone as recently as January of 2012. The husband argued that such contact was not a barrier to absolute divorce via voluntary separation. The husband lost at the circuit court level and then filed an appeal.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Discussion
The husband’s appeal was successful, as the appellate court ruled that the circuit court erred under the “clearly erroneous” standard of review. Here, the appellate division set an important precedent in Maryland family law by establishing that telephonic contact, even telephonic contact of an explicit nature, is not an interruption to physical separation under FL § 7-103(a)(4). Thus, it is not “cohabitation” as this term is meant to be construed according to the statute.
In its decision, the appellate division cited persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, such as the Court of Appeals of Louisiana and North Carolina. These other cases highlighted the fact that adultery has never encompassed telephonic conservations alone, and so telephonic conservations should not constitute “cohabitation” for the purposes of interrupting voluntary separation.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Resources
Readers who want to know more about the contours of cohabitation under Maryland law, voluntary separation, grounds for divorce, or any other relevant family law matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
