Domestic relations – Divorce – Marital home

Listen to this article

Where a judgment of divorce nisi has been challenged on appeal, so much of the judgment as relates to child support, the marital home, and alimony must be vacated because (1) the judge’s findings of fact and rationale are insufficient to support the judgment and (2) the judge failed to follow the three-step framework set forth in Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 490 Mass. 398, 410-11 (2022).

“Although the father does not challenge the equal division of the marital home, he contends that the judge erred in her handling of the asset in other ways. He claims that the judge impermissibly ‘connect[ed] child support with property division’ and improperly extended the marital partnership by (1) awarding use and occupancy and mortgage payments as child support and (2) delaying the sale of the home, and therefore the distribution of its value, until the termination of the child support order. The father relies on language in Cavanagh I, 490 Mass. at 409, stating that ‘child support and alimony serve distinct purposes’ and that ‘it makes little sense to tie the availability of alimony to the provision of child support.’ According to the father, because ‘alimony and property division are specifically intertwined,’ this language prohibits a judge from connecting child support with property division.

“To the extent the father argues that Cavanagh I now prohibits a judge from crafting a child support order that permits minor children to remain in a marital home and that delays of the sale of that asset until the children’s emancipation are impermissible, we are not persuaded. …

“Notwithstanding, the judge’s findings of fact and rationale are insufficient to support the judgment. … To begin, the judgment is silent as to how the father will meet his ‘essential living expenses’ where the father leaves the marriage with minimal assets and what appears to be all of the substantial marital debt. … In particular, the judge did not make any findings regarding the possibility of refinancing or borrowing against the equity in the home. … Likewise, the judge determined the amount of equity in the home at the time of trial, and could have assigned the home to the mother and ordered her to pay the father his share of equity. …

“In addition, the judgment is ambiguous as it relates to the maintenance costs for the home. The judgment is silent as to whether the father’s contributions are to be considered as child support, as a component of property division, or otherwise. Nor is it apparent from the judge’s findings what those costs are expected to be. …

“First, we agree that the judge failed to follow the three-step framework set forth in Cavanagh I, 490 Mass. at 410-411. …

“Furthermore, in fashioning the final order of support, the judge awarded the mother exclusive use and occupancy of the home, but the judge did not consider the value of the use and occupancy. This must be addressed on remand. …

“We vacate so much of the judgment as relates to child support, the marital home, and alimony and remand for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.”

Fisak v. Fisak (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-148-25) (12 pages) (Docket No. 24-P-207) (Nov. 7, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.