Sherman v. Rouse (2020): Dissolving Civil Unions

Published on
April 5, 2023
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Divorce

In many ways, the landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) – the case which legalized same-sex marriage in all states in the U.S. – has simplified the legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage. But, though this may be true, same-sex couples can still run into issues which don’t normally apply to opposite sex couples. This was the case with a recent decision which involved a same-sex couple who traveled to Montgomery County after establishing a civil union in Vermont. Let’s look at the facts of this case in a bit of detail.

Sherman v. Rouse: Facts of the Case

The couple in this case consisted of two males who entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont in 2003. The couple moved to Maryland, but refrained from getting a formal marriage certificate even after same-sex marriage became legal (in this state) in 2013. In 2018, the relationship deteriorated to the point of irreparability, and a dissolution was sought. The petitioner for the dissolution (Sherman) sought not only a formal divorce decree, but also an award for alimony, child support, property division, and custody of the couple’s children. The respondent contended that Maryland could not grant the divorce (and the accompanying rulings) because, technically, the couple had only established a civil union, not an actual marriage. Hence, the respondent argued, a divorce was impossible because there was actually no legitimate marriage to dissolve in the first place.

Outcome: Maryland Can Dissolve Vermont Civil Unions

Ultimately, the petitioner succeeded and the court ruled against the respondent and his arguments. Maryland’s doctrine of comity applies to same-sex marriages, and this was the case even prior to Maryland’s formal allowance for same-sex marriages in 2013. This meant that Maryland had the ability to grant divorces to out-of-state same-sex marriages, despite the fact that such marriages could not legally originate in Maryland prior to 2013. So, there was not really a dispute as to whether Maryland could grant divorces to out-of-state same-sex marriages. However, when considering the respondent’s argument regarding the distinction between civil unions and marriages, the Maryland court stated that, even according to Vermont law, the procedure for dissolving civil unions was identical to that for dissolving formal marriages. In other words, civil unions in Vermont are dissolved in the same manner as traditional marriages, and so forbidding a Maryland divorce because of the fact that the couple had a civil union is simply not logical.

The court concluded that, because this particular couple could achieve a divorce in Vermont, there is no reason why this couple couldn’t obtain a similar result in the State of Maryland. Maryland has the power to grant divorces to out-of-state same-sex civil unions, and so ultimately the respondent failed.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

As you can see, even today same-sex unions can present tricky issues and questions of law. This is one of the many advantages which go along with consulting with an experienced Maryland family law attorney. If you want to know more, give one of the lawyers at the Murphy Law Firm a call today at 240-219-8963.

‍

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Counsel|Divorce|Divorce case|Divorce Cases|Family law attorney|family law attorney near me|family law lawyers|Family Lawyer|Good counsel|Hiring Good Counsel|Legal case|Litigants|Marriage|Maryland Court|Maryland Divorce Lawyer|Maryland Family Law|Maryland Family Lawyer|Maryland Law|Civil Unions|Sovereign citizens|Sherman v. Rouse

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.