CA1: Making your divorce a federal case

Mooney v. Mooney, 06-1118 (12/22/06). In this case, a husband seeks rescission of a separation agreement that was not merged into the divorce judgment, arguing that it was procured by duress, coercion, and undue influence. I don't know the facts, but are not all divorce actions premised on duress, coercion, and undue influence? Keep reading.

After the action seeking rescission was filed, his wife filed for contempt in the underlying divorce.  In the Federal Court, the successfully defendant moved to dismiss, citing the "domestic relations" exception in 28 U.S.C. § 1332.  But the First holds that:

In Ankenbrandt v. Richards, the Supreme Court clarified that the domestic relations exception "encompasses only cases involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree." 504 U.S. 689, 704 (1992). And more recently, in Marshall v. Marshall, the Court emphasized, once again, that abstention is not appropriate when a claim, though related to a domestic relations issue, does not itself challenge a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. See 126 S. Ct. 1735, 1744-46 (2006). In light of Ankenbrandt and Marshall, abstention is not warranted simply because a claim that is "not within" the domestic relation exception is, nonetheless, "closely related to" a domestic relations matter...

But, the rub is that, as a matter of Massachusetts law:

notwithstanding the availability of a separate cause of action to enforce a separation agreement incorporated but not merged into a divorce decree, an independent action seeking rescission of such an agreement does not lie where the party seeking rescission also is challenging the validity of the divorce decree

So, therefore, the divorce proceeding is good enough to do justice.  Moreover, since the plaintiff had convinced the probate court that he was entitled to a no-fault divorce, he can't argue that the entire divorce -- not just the unincorporated separation agreement -- was invalid to start.