Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gottsegen v. Gottsegen

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 22, 1986Published

1DissentNolan, J.

In part one of its opinion, the court has, in my view, completely ignored the intent of the parties — as expressed in their separation agreement, and elevated form over substance to sustain its holding. In doing so, the court has irredeemably overruled Bell without forthrightly admitting it. I dissent.

I agree with the premise that a court is to follow G. L. c. 208, § 34 (1984 ed.), in awarding alimony. I also agree that a judge may not order alimony terminated because of the cohabitation of a former spouse with a member of the opposite sex, without more. Ante at 625. However, neither issue…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bell v. BellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
  2. Bell v. BellMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API