Lynch & Owens Podcast - A Massachusetts Divorce & Family Law Podcast

This AI-generated podcast reviews a blog by attorney Jason V. Owens of Lynch & Owens entitled, Appeals Court: Order to Vacate Marital Home Justified by Divorcing Parent’s Inappropriate Comments to Child. In addition to reviewing the blog, the podcast seeks to provide an overview of the law surrounding motions to vacate the marital home in Massachusetts divorce cases. 

Creators and Guests

Writer
Jason V. Owens
Jason V. Owens is a law partner and family law blogger at Lynch & Owens, P.C. His blogs frequently provide the content for the Lynch & Owens Podcast.

What is Lynch & Owens Podcast - A Massachusetts Divorce & Family Law Podcast?

We are a podcast focused on Massachusetts divorce and family law issues, brought to you by the attorneys of Lynch & Owens, PC.

Our podcasts are generated by Google NotebookLM, an artificial intelligence platform, based on blogs created by the attorneys of Lynch & Owens, P.C. of Hingham, Massachusetts. Note that the opinions offered in the show are generated by artificial intelligence and may differ from the source material. Neither our blogs nor our podcasts are legal advice.

Follow our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or through our RSS feed.

Host 1:

Alright. So you know how in divorce cases, sometimes you hear about, like, a vacate order? Yeah. Yeah. Well, especially in Massachusetts.

Host 1:

Uh-huh. It's not just about, you know, splitting up furniture and deciding who gets what. Right. It can get pretty serious. Yeah.

Host 1:

We're actually talking about, like, a really serious legal order with some intense consequences.

Host 2:

Oh, yeah. It's a unique aspect of Massachusetts family law. That's for sure.

Host 1:

Exactly.

Host 2:

And it goes beyond just kind of the simple idea of one spouse spouse moving out. Yes. It's,

Host 1:

Today, we're diving into a ball post by Jason Owens Okay. Who's a Massachusetts divorce attorney.

Host 2:

Uh-huh.

Host 1:

Yep. Lynch and Owens.

Host 2:

Alright.

Host 1:

And he knows this stuff inside and out. Okay. He really gets into the weeds Yeah. On how these vacate orders actually work

Host 2:

Mhmm.

Host 1:

And what kind of situations can lead to 1.

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

And that's really important because while we can give you a good overview today

Host 2:

Yeah.

Host 1:

With the help of AI Right. It's important to remember that

Host 2:

Every case is different.

Host 1:

Yeah. Every case is different. Yeah. And the law is specific to Massachusetts.

Host 2:

A white. Oh,

Host 1:

right. So if you're going through something similar Mhmm. Definitely talk to an

Host 2:

attorney

Host 1:

Right. Who can give you advice Yes.

Host 2:

That is tailored

Host 1:

to your situation. Exactly. So think of this deep dive as, like, your cheat sheet to understanding vacate orders. Uh-huh. But definitely not a substitute for real legal advice.

Host 2:

Exactly.

Host 1:

So let's get started.

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

What exactly I a vacate order in Massachusetts?

Host 2:

So, essentially, it's a court order that can force a spouse Uh-huh. To leave the marital home during a divorce

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Even if they own the property.

Host 1:

With even if they own the house. Yeah. That seems pretty extreme.

Host 2:

It can be.

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

It's it's all laid out in Massachusetts general law, chapter 208, section 34 b.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

And it's a powerful tool that judges have

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

To ensure the safety and well-being of everyone involved

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Especially if there are children.

Host 1:

So who exactly can issue one of these orders?

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

And how long does it actually last?

Host 2:

So only a probate and family court judge

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Can issue a vacate order.

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

And it's usually done during divorce proceedings.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Initially, it lasts for 90 days.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

But a judge can keep extending it Oh. In 90 day increments for as long as they deem it's necessary.

Host 1:

So it's not a quick fix.

Host 2:

Oh, no.

Host 1:

It can actually drag on for a while.

Host 2:

Yeah. It can.

Host 1:

What about enforcement?

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

What happens if someone ignores the order

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

And just stays put?

Host 2:

That's where things get serious.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Violating a vacate order is treated very similarly

Host 1:

k.

Host 2:

To violating a restraining order.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

You're looking at potential arrest Oh, wow. Criminal charges, the whole 9 yards.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

It's legally binding, and the court doesn't mess around when it comes to enforcing it.

Host 1:

So it's definitely not something to take lightly.

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

But what are the grounds for actually getting one of these orders in the first place?

Host 2:

Uh-huh.

Host 1:

Like, what does someone have to prove to convince a judge to kick their spouse out of the house?

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

Like, what are we talking about here?

Host 2:

So that's where the language of the law gets kind of interesting.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

It all hinges on this phrase.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Health, safety, or welfare.

Host 1:

Right. And as you might imagine, that can be pretty broad.

Host 2:

Yes. Very much so.

Host 1:

And open to interpretation. Yes. So how do judges actually apply that standard?

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

What kind of situations are we talking about here?

Host 2:

Well, for a long time, it was assumed

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

That vacate orders were primarily used in cases of domestic violence

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Where there was a clear threat of physical harm.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

But recent cases have shown us

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

That the threshold can be something less than physical violence

Host 1:

Interesting.

Host 2:

Which broadens the scope significantly.

Host 1:

Something less. Can you give us an example?

Host 2:

Absolutely. Okay. So there's a recent case, JCVAC

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

That provides some insight Uh-huh. Into how judges are interpreting

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

This health, safety, or welfare standard. In this case, the husband was ordered to vacate the marital home Right. Not because of physical abuse Okay. But because he was making inappropriate comments about the divorce

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

To their 6 year old child

Host 1:

Oh, wow.

Host 2:

And blaming his wife for the situation.

Host 1:

So even emotional or psychological harm

Host 2:

Yeah.

Host 1:

Especially to a child Right. Could be enough to warrant a vacate order.

Host 2:

That's right. The judge in that case recognized that this kind of behavior could have a serious impact on the child's well-being even if there was no physical violence involved. Wow. And that's a big shift in how these orders are being used.

Host 1:

That makes sense. It acknowledges that a toxic home environment

Host 2:

Yes.

Host 1:

Can be damaging even without physical abuse.

Host 2:

Exactly. It's about protecting the health, safety, or welfare of everyone in the household.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

And sometimes that means separating the spouses even temporarily.

Host 1:

So these vacate orders can be a powerful tool Yeah. In situations where there's a need to deescalate conflict and create a safer environment for everyone involved

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

Even if it doesn't rise to the level of needing a restraining order.

Host 2:

Precisely.

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

And and it's important to remember that in some situations, things can escalate very quickly.

Host 1:

Oh, okay.

Host 2:

And waiting for a full court hearing

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Might put someone at risk.

Host 1:

Yeah. That's true.

Host 2:

That's where emergency vacate orders come into play.

Host 1:

Emergency vacate orders. Yeah. Tell me more about those.

Host 2:

So these are situations where a judge can issue a vacate order immediately Wow. Without the other spouse even being present. It's called an ex parte order.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

And it's used when there's evidence of immediate danger.

Host 1:

So you're saying that a judge can literally order someone out of their home Yeah. Without even giving them a chance to defend themselves first.

Host 2:

It can be. Yes.

Host 1:

That seems like it could be problematic.

Host 2:

It can be, and it definitely raises some concerns about due process.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

But the idea is to provide immediate protection when someone's safety is at stake.

Host 1:

I see.

Host 2:

Imagine a situation where there's been a recent threat of violence Okay. Or there's evidence of escalating abuse.

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

In those cases, there's simply no time to wait for a full hearing.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

You have to take action.

Host 1:

Yeah. I can see how that would be necessary in some situations.

Host 2:

Uh-huh.

Host 1:

But it also seems like it could be misused

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

Especially if one spouse is trying to gain an advantage Yeah. In the divorce proceedings.

Host 2:

Yeah. That's a valid concern.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

And it's why these emergency orders are taken very seriously.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

The judge has to carefully weigh the evidence

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

And make sure there's a genuine credible threat

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Before issuing such an order.

Host 1:

So it's a delicate balance Yes. Between protecting someone from harm Uh-huh. And making sure that these orders aren't being abused.

Host 2:

Exactly. And to ensure that balance the process doesn't end with the issuance of the emergency order.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

There's always a follow-up hearing scheduled very quickly, usually within 5 days, where the other party can then present their side of this story.

Host 1:

So there's at least a chance to challenge the order Yeah. And make sure it's justified.

Host 2:

Right. It's not a perfect system

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

But it's an attempt to address the need for immediate protection

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

While still preserving some level of due process.

Host 1:

Now I'm curious about something else. Okay. How does a vacate order differ from a sole use and occupancy order?

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

I've heard that term used in divorce cases as well. Uh-huh. And I'm not sure what the distinction is.

Host 2:

Yeah. That's a great question.

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

And it's something that often causes confusion.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

The key difference lies in the severity of the consequences Okay. For violating the order.

Host 1:

So tell me more about that.

Host 2:

So with a vacate order

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

Remember, we're talking about potential arrest and criminal charges.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

It's treated very seriously. Yeah. A sole use and occupancy order

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Doesn't carry those same heavy penalties.

Host 1:

So if you violate a sole use and occupancy order Right.

Host 2:

You're not going to jail.

Host 1:

Right. You might face other legal consequences

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

But it's not considered a criminal offense

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

Like violating a vacate order is.

Host 2:

Interesting. So why would a judge ever choose a sole use and occupancy order Mhmm. Instead of a vacate order?

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

It seems like the vacate order has a lot more teeth.

Host 1:

It really comes down to the specific circumstances of the case Okay. And the judge's assessment of the situation.

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

Sometimes a sole use and occupancy order is seen as a less drastic option

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

A way to deescalate conflict

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

Without resorting to criminal charges.

Host 2:

So it's a way to give one spouse the exclusive right to live in the house Right. Without resorting to the full force of a vacate order.

Host 1:

Exactly. Interesting. And some attorneys and judges actually prefer this approach Uh-huh. Especially in cases where there's no history of violence or abuse Yeah. And the goal is simply to create a more peaceful living arrangement while the divorce is pending.

Host 1:

It's interesting that there are these different tools available

Host 2:

Uh-huh.

Host 1:

To address these different levels of conflict.

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

But didn't you say there's some controversy around these sole use and occupancy orders?

Host 2:

There is.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

It gets a little complicated because legally speaking

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

The concept of use and enjoyment of property Mhmm. Comes from real estate law

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Not family law.

Host 1:

So using a concept from property law Uh-huh. To address a family issue is a bit of a legal gray area. Exactly. Okay. And some legal

Host 2:

experts argue Mhmm.

Host 1:

That section 34

Host 2:

b Alright. Argue Mhmm. That section 34 b

Host 1:

Alright.

Host 2:

The law specifically designed for vacate orders Right. In divorce cases

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Should be the only mechanism

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

For removing a spouse from the home Okay. For nonviolent reasons.

Host 1:

So there's a debate

Host 2:

Yeah.

Host 1:

About whether these sole use and occupancy orders Mhmm. Even belong in family court.

Host 2:

That's the gist of it. Yeah. Okay. It's an ongoing discussion. But regardless of the legal nuances Yeah.

Host 2:

It's clear that violating a vacate order

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Has much more serious consequences

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Than violating a sole use and occupancy order.

Host 1:

Got it. Yeah. So just to be crystal clear

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

How does a vacate order differ

Host 2:

Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

Host 1:

From a 209 a restraining order?

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

Those seem like they'd both be used in similar situations.

Host 2:

That's another important distinction. Okay. A 209 a restraining order, as you probably know Right. Is specifically designed to protect someone from abuse or harassment.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

To obtain a restraining order

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

You have to prove that there's a threat of physical violence Right. Or a reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm.

Host 1:

It's a pretty high bar.

Host 2:

It is. Yeah.

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

And a vacate order, remember, doesn't require that same level of threat.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

The health, safety, or welfare standard

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

Is much broader

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

And can encompass a wider range of behavior.

Host 1:

So you could potentially get a vacate order Yeah. Even if you don't meet the requirements Right. For a restraining order.

Host 2:

That's right. They're separate legal tools

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

Designed to address different situations.

Host 1:

All of this is starting to make a lot more sense now. Good. But we've been talking about married couples this whole time.

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

What about unmarried couples who are living together? Right. Do these vacate orders apply to them as well?

Host 2:

That's where things get a little murky legally.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

There's no clear cut answer on whether section 34 b Uh-huh. The vacate order law

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Applies to unmarried couples Okay. Even if they have children together.

Host 1:

So if you're not married Yeah. You might be out of luck No. When it comes to vacate orders.

Host 2:

It's not that simple.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

There are arguments to be made on both sides. Right. For example, Massachusetts courts have extended certain protections

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

To children of unmarried parents Uh-huh. In other areas of family law. Law.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

So a clever attorney might be able to argue Yeah.

Host 1:

That the same logic should apply to vacate orders.

Host 2:

So it's a bit of a gray area

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

And it would depend on how a judge interprets the law.

Host 1:

Precisely and practically speaking.

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

Applying a temporary order like this Right. To a situation where there's no open divorce case

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

Gets tricky fast.

Host 2:

Yeah. That makes sense.

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

So for unmarried couples

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

It might be more complicated to obtain a vacate order. Right. And other legal options, like restraining orders, might be more appropriate.

Host 1:

Potentially. Yeah. But here's a thought. Okay. What if an attorney

Host 2:

Mhmm.

Host 1:

Argued Uh-huh. To apply the less strict health, safety, or welfare standard

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

From section 34 b

Host 2:

Uh-huh.

Host 1:

To the vacate provisions already outlined Yeah. Under 209 a restraining orders.

Host 2:

Interesting.

Host 1:

Remember, those d o apply to unmarried couples.

Host 2:

Oh, that's interesting. Yeah. So they could try to use the less strict vacate standard from divorce cases

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

In the context of a restraining order

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

For an unmarried couple. Exactly.

Host 1:

That's a clever legal strategy.

Host 2:

It is. It just goes to show how the interpretation and application of the law Right. Can really make a difference in these cases.

Host 1:

Absolutely.

Host 2:

Now speaking of interpretation

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

We've talked a lot about that JCVAC case.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

The one where the husband was making those inappropriate comments to his child.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Is that case the be all and end all when it comes to interpreting vacate orders in Massachusetts?

Host 1:

Yeah. That's a good question. Does that one case set the standard for all future cases?

Host 2:

Well, not exactly. You see, JCVAC

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Is what's called an unpublished appeals court opinion.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

And in Massachusetts Uh-huh. Unpublished opinions aren't considered binding precedent.

Host 1:

So other judges don't necessarily have to follow Right. What was decided in that case?

Host 2:

Technically, no. Okay. But and here's the catch. K. Unpublished opinions still carry weight, especially in areas of law where there isn't a lot of established case law, like, with these vacate orders.

Host 1:

So even though it's not officially binding

Host 2:

Uh-huh.

Host 1:

Judges will likely still look to that case for guidance?

Host 2:

Exactly. It's like a compass pointing in a general direction even if it's not a detailed map.

Host 1:

I

Host 2:

see. Think about it like this. Okay. In Massachusetts divorce law

Host 1:

Mhmm.

Host 2:

We have this thing called Vaughn Affidavits.

Host 1:

Vaughn Affidavits. What are those?

Host 2:

Basically, they allow the parents of a divorcing spouse Woah. To avoid being deposed in the case Okay. By submitting a written summary of their estate plans.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

And get this.

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

The entire legal basis for these Vaughn affidavits

Host 1:

Doug.

Host 2:

Is a single justice memo from 1990.

Host 1:

Wait. So a whole legal practice Yep. Is based on a single memo Yep. From decades ago.

Host 2:

Uh-huh. And it's been widely accepted Right. In Massachusetts courts ever since.

Host 1:

That's wild.

Host 2:

So it's not far fetched to think that JCVAC

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

Even though it's unpublished So could have a similar impact Yeah. On how vacate orders are handled moving forward.

Host 1:

It's fascinating how one case can potentially shape the course of legal interpretation.

Host 2:

It is. It really highlights the importance of staying up to date Yes. On legal developments Uh-huh.

Host 1:

Importance of staying up to date Yes. On legal developments Uh-huh. Even those that aren't officially binding.

Host 2:

It does. Yeah. And it underscores the importance of having a skilled attorney Mhmm. Who understands the nuances of the law Right. And can advocate effectively for your rights.

Host 1:

Couldn't agree more.

Host 2:

Yeah.

Host 1:

Well, we've covered a lot of ground here.

Host 2:

Yeah. We have.

Host 1:

But I feel like we've just scratched the surface of this complex issue.

Host 2:

Yeah. There's

Host 1:

What other aspects of vacate orders do we need to explore?

Host 2:

Well, there's still a lot to unpack. We need to discuss what happens after a vacate order is issued. Okay. The potential consequences for violating it Yeah. And how the whole process plays out in the context of a divorce

Host 1:

Sounds like we have a lot more to discuss. Stay tuned for part 2 of our deep dive into vacate orders in Massachusetts.

Host 2:

So welcome back to our deep dive into vacate orders.

Host 1:

Alright. So last time Yep. We talked about the legal standards Right. For issuing these orders.

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

But what happens next? Right. What does it actually look like for someone Yes. Who's either been issued a vacate order Mhmm. Or has successfully gotten one

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

Against their spouse?

Host 2:

So the first thing to un understand is that a vacate order is temporary.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

It usually lasts for 90 days initially.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

But as we discussed, it can be extended.

Host 1:

Right. So it's not like a permanent eviction from the house?

Host 2:

No. Not at all. Okay. And during those 90 days or however long the order is in effect Right. The person who is subject to the order Right.

Host 2:

Is absolutely prohibited from returning to the home.

Host 1:

What happens if they do try to come back?

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

Like, what if they just show up to, like, grab some clothes or something?

Host 2:

That's where those serious consequences we talked about come into play.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Violating a vacate order

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

Even for something seemingly minor

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

Is treated very similarly to violating a restraining order.

Host 1:

So we're talking about potential arrest?

Host 2:

Potentially, yes. Wow. It's considered a criminal offense, and the court takes it very seriously.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

In fact, a copy of the vacate order is usually given to the local police department

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Where the house is located. Right. So they're aware of the situation Okay. And can enforce the order as necessary.

Host 1:

Wow. So it's really like having an extra layer of protection in place.

Host 2:

Exactly. Yeah. Now during that initial 90 day period

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

There's usually a follow-up hearing scheduled.

Host 1:

What happens at that hearing?

Host 2:

Okay.

Host 1:

Is it, like, a chance to appeal the order?

Host 2:

It's more than just an appeal.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

It's a chance for both sides

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

To present their case to the judge. Okay. The person who originally obtained the vacate order

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Might argue for an extension

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Especially if they still feel unsafe

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Or if the situation hasn't improved.

Host 1:

And the person who is ordered to leave can argue for the order to be lifted. Right?

Host 2:

Precisely. So it's kind of like a mini trial

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Where the judge gets to reevaluate the situation

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

And hear from both parties.

Host 1:

What kinds of things will the judge consider Right. While making their decision? Like, what could sway them to lift the order or extend it?

Host 2:

So they'll look at a whole range of factors.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

They'll consider whether there have been any changes in the circumstances Uh-huh. Since the original order was issued.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Have things calmed down?

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Are there new arrangements in place Yeah. To address the safety concerns?

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

They'll also consider the well-being of all parties involved Uh-huh. Especially if there are children

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

And whether there are any alternative solutions that might be more appropriate than a vacate order.

Host 1:

So if the situation has de escalated Uh-huh. Or if there's a plan in place Yeah. To make sure everyone is safe Yeah. The judge might be more likely to list the order.

Host 2:

That's possible. Yes.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

But it really all depends on the specific facts of the case Right. And how the judge interprets those facts. Yeah. There's no one size fits all answer.

Host 1:

It makes sense that the court would wanna have the flexibility Uh-huh. To respond to changes in the situation Right. Rather than just having a rigid 90 day rule.

Host 2:

Right. The ultimate goal is to find a solution

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

That protects everyone and creates a stable environment Yeah. Especially if children are involved.

Host 1:

You know, as we're talking about all of this Yeah. It strikes me how powerful these vacate orders can be.

Host 2:

Uh-huh.

Host 1:

We we're talking about potentially upending someone's life

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

Forcing them to leave their home

Host 2:

Yeah.

Host 1:

Even if there's no physical violence involved.

Host 2:

Uh-huh.

Host 1:

It makes you wonder about the balance between safety and fairness.

Host 2:

That's a really important point.

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

And it's something that judges have to grapple with all the time. Right. How do we ensure that these orders are being used appropriately

Host 1:

Exactly.

Host 2:

Not as a weapon in a divorce case?

Host 1:

Like, what's to stop someone from making false accusations Right. Just to gain an advantage in the divorce?

Host 2:

That's where having a strong legal system Okay. And experienced attorneys on both sides comes into play.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

The person requesting the order Right. Has to present evidence that supports their claims. Right. It's not just about saying I feel unsafe

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

In getting an order automatically.

Host 1:

So what kind of evidence would typically be presented in a case like this?

Host 2:

Well, it depends on the specific situation, of course.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

But think back to that JCVAC case we discussed earlier

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Where the husband was making inappropriate comments to the child in a case like that Yeah. Evidence of those comments.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Maybe text messages or emails Okay. Could be used to support the request for a vacate order.

Host 1:

So even things like verbal abuse or creating a toxic environment in the home Right. Could potentially be grounds for a vacate order.

Host 2:

Potentially. Yes.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

But it's important to remember that the moving party

Host 1:

k.

Host 2:

The person requesting the order has to convince the judge

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

That their safety or the safety of the children is genuinely at risk.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

It's not just about feeling uncomfortable or having disagreements.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

There has to be a real threat to well-being.

Host 1:

That makes sense. Yeah. It's about drawing that line between what's legally justifiable and what's just part of the normal conflict that can arise during a divorce.

Host 2:

Exactly.

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

Now going back to those emergency vacate orders for a moment

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Those seem like they could be even more prone to misuse. Right?

Host 1:

I mean, the other party isn't even present to defend themselves.

Host 2:

You're right. Those emergency orders definitely raise concerns about due process. Right. But as we discussed, they're specifically designed for situations where there's an immediate danger, and there's simply no time to wait for a full hearing.

Host 1:

So what kinds of situations would warrant an emergency vacate order?

Host 2:

Think about cases Uh-huh. Where there's a credible threat of physical harm

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Like a history of domestic violence or a recent escalation in threats. Okay. The moving party would need to present evidence Right. That convinces the judge Yeah. That immediate action is necessary to protect someone's safety.

Host 1:

So things like police reports Mhmm. Photos of injuries Right. Or even witness statements Yeah. Could be used to support the request for an emergency order.

Host 2:

Absolutely. Right. The more evidence the moving party can present

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

The more likely it is that a judge will take action.

Host 1:

It's all about establishing that there's a real imminent danger.

Host 2:

Exactly. Not just a hypothetical one. Precisely. Yeah. And it's important to remember that even with an emergency order

Host 1:

Cool.

Host 2:

The other party does eventually get a chance to be heard. Okay. The court is required to schedule a follow-up hearing very quickly. Okay. Usually within 5 days.

Host 1:

So there's at least a check and balance system in place Right. To make sure that these emergency orders aren't being abused.

Host 2:

That's the idea. Yeah. It's a way to try to provide immediate protection while still ensuring that everyone gets a fair chance

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

To present their side of the story.

Host 1:

You know, all of this must be incredibly stressful Yeah. For the families involved

Host 2:

Oh, yeah.

Host 1:

Especially when children are in the mix.

Host 2:

Absolutely. There's no doubt about that. Yeah. It's a very difficult and emotionally charged situation. Yeah.

Host 2:

And it's important to remember that there are resources available

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

To help people navigate this process.

Host 1:

Like, what kinds of resources?

Host 2:

Well, first and foremost, having an experienced attorney is crucial. Good. They can explain your rights

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

Guide you through the process Yeah. And advocate for your best interests.

Host 1:

Okay. But

Host 2:

there are also support groups, therapists

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

And other professionals Yeah. Who can provide emotional support and guidance Right. During this challenging time.

Host 1:

It's important to remember that you don't have to go through this alone.

Host 2:

Exactly.

Host 1:

There are people who can help.

Host 2:

Absolutely. Yeah. Now let's shift gears a bit and talk about those sole use and occupancy orders again.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

We mentioned earlier that there's some debate about whether they're even appropriate

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

In family court cases.

Host 1:

You said it's because they're based on a concept Mhmm. From property law Yes. Not family law.

Host 2:

Exactly.

Host 1:

Can you explain that a little more?

Host 2:

Sure. Okay. So section 34 b of the Massachusetts General Laws

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Very clearly authorizes vacate orders in divorce cases.

Host 1:

K.

Host 2:

But there's no equivalent statute

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

For sole use and occupancy orders.

Host 1:

So it's kind of a legal gray area.

Host 2:

Exactly.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

And because the legal basis isn't as clear cut

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

Some people argue

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

That sole use and occupancy orders shouldn't even be used in family court.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

They say that section 34 b

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

Which deals specifically with vacating the marital home

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Should be the exclusive mechanism for removing a spouse from the home.

Host 1:

I can see their point. Uh-huh. It seems like relying on a legal concept borrowed from property law to resolve a family dispute

Host 2:

Uh-huh.

Host 1:

Could be problematic.

Host 2:

Right. But there's another side to this debate.

Host 1:

K.

Host 2:

Proponents of sole use and occupancy orders argue

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

That they provide a less drastic option

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

A way to deescalate a situation Right. Without resorting to those harsh criminal penalties

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

That come with a vacate order.

Host 1:

So it's like a middle ground. Uh-huh. A way to create some separation and peace Yeah. Without resorting to the nuclear option.

Host 2:

That's one way to look at it. Yep. And they argue that it allows the court to be more flexible

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

And tailor the solution to specific needs of the family. So

Host 1:

it's a balancing act Uh-huh. Between ensuring safety

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

And avoiding overly harsh consequences.

Host 2:

Precisely.

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

And, ultimately, it's up to the judge Right. To decide which approach is most appropriate Right. In each individual case.

Host 1:

It sounds like there's no easy answer here. No. It's a complex issue Yeah. With valid arguments on both sides.

Host 2:

That's the nature of family law, unfortunately.

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

These cases often involve very personal and emotionally charged issues.

Host 1:

Mhmm.

Host 2:

And there's rarely a one size fits all solution.

Host 1:

Well said. Yeah. It's clear that navigating these legal waters Mhmm. Requires careful consideration and the guidance of an experienced attorney.

Host 2:

Absolutely. Yeah. And it's important to remember that the law is constantly evolving. Yeah. New cases and legal interpretations can shift the landscape.

Host 1:

Yeah. It's true.

Host 2:

So staying informed is crucial.

Host 1:

Speaking of new cases Okay. We've talked a lot about JCVAC Uh-huh. That unpublished case Yeah. That dealt with the husband making those inappropriate comments to his child.

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

You said it could potentially have a big impact Uh-huh. On how vacate orders are interpreted going forward Yes. Even though it's not officially binding. Right. Can you elaborate on that?

Host 2:

Sure. Like Even though unpublished opinions aren't considered binding precedent in Massachusetts, they still hold what's called persuasive value.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Judges will often look to them for guidance

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Especially in areas of law where there's limited case law.

Host 1:

Uh-huh. Like, with these vacate orders. So JCVAC could become a sort of unofficial guidepost?

Host 2:

It's quite possible

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Especially given the unique circumstances of that case. Right. Remember, it dealt with a husband making making inappropriate comments to his child about the divorce. Uh-huh. And the court found that this behavior was enough to justify a vacate order Okay.

Host 2:

Even though there was no physical abuse.

Host 1:

So it sort of set a precedent for considering emotional and psychological harm

Host 2:

Exactly.

Host 1:

As a valid reason for issuing a vacate order

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

Even in the absence of physical violence.

Host 2:

Exactly. Wow. And that could have a ripple effect on future cases where similar allegations are made.

Host 1:

It's amazing how one case can potentially shape the course of legal interpretation.

Host 2:

It is.

Host 1:

It really speaks to the power of precedent in our legal system. Well, I feel like we've covered a lot of ground in this deep dive so far.

Host 2:

We have.

Host 1:

We've gone from the basics of vacate orders

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

To the finer points of legal interpretation.

Host 2:

We've really unpacked the nuances of the process, haven't we?

Host 1:

Yeah. We have.

Host 2:

But there's one more piece of the puzzle we need to discuss.

Host 1:

What's that?

Host 2:

What happens after the 90 day period

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

Or any extensions

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Have run their course?

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

How does a vacate order eventually get resolved?

Host 1:

Right. Because is it like the order just stays in place forever?

Host 2:

Exactly. Yeah. So let's delve into that in the final part of our deep dive.

Host 1:

Okay. So we spend a lot of time talking about, you know, how these vacate orders work in Massachusetts. Right. The legal standards, the potential for misuse, all that.

Host 2:

Uh-huh.

Host 1:

But what happens once that initial 90 day period or any extensions are up Right. It's not like the order just hangs over someone's head.

Host 2:

Yeah.

Host 1:

Indefinitely. You're

Host 2:

right. It doesn't. Yeah. The whole point of a vacate order is to provide that temporary separation and address those immediate safety concerns.

Host 1:

Uh-huh. It's

Host 2:

not meant to be a permanent solution.

Host 1:

So what typically happens next? How does the order eventually get resolved?

Host 2:

Well, there are a few possibilities. Okay. Ideally, during that separation period

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

The couple, with the help of their attorneys, would work towards a more permanent resolution.

Host 1:

So they try to reach some kind of agreement Yeah. About the living arrangements, maybe as part of a larger separation agreement or divorce settlement.

Host 2:

Exactly.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

They might decide that one spouse will will buy out the other's interest in the home

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

Or they might agree to sell the property and split the proceeds.

Host 1:

So the vacate order essentially buys them some time and space Uh-huh. To figure out those long term arrangements Exactly. Without the added pressure of living under the same roof.

Host 2:

That's a good way to put it. Okay. It creates that cooling off period Right. Allows emotions to settle Uh-huh. And hopefully leads to a more amicable resolution.

Host 1:

But what if they can agree? What if they reach the end of that 90 day period Yeah. Or even multiple extensions

Host 2:

Mhmm.

Host 1:

And they're still just, like, at odds about the house?

Host 2:

That's where things can get more complicated. Oh. If they can't reach an agreement on their own Yeah. They might end up back in court Okay. Asking the judge to make a decision for them.

Host 1:

So the judge could essentially step in and decide who gets to stay in the house?

Host 2:

In a sense, yes.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

The judge would consider all the evidence Right. The arguments presented by both sides

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

And then issue a ruling that outlines the living arrangements moving forward.

Host 1:

I imagine those hearings could get pretty contentious.

Host 2:

They can be. Absolutely.

Host 1:

Especially if both spouses are just determined to stay in the house.

Host 2:

It's an emotionally charged situation Uh-huh. And people often feel very strongly about their home.

Host 1:

Absolutely. And what about the kids? Right. How does the judge factor their well-being into these decisions?

Host 2:

The best interest of the children are always paramount in these cases. The judge will carefully consider the impact of any decision on the children's stability

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Their relationship with both parents Uh-huh. And their overall well-being.

Host 1:

So it's not just about who has a stronger legal claim to the house. Right. It's about finding a solution that serves the best interests of everyone involved

Host 2:

Exactly.

Host 1:

Especially the children.

Host 2:

Now it's important to remember that even if the judge makes a ruling about who gets to stay in the house K. That doesn't necessarily mean the case is over.

Host 1:

Okay.

Host 2:

There might be other issues to resolve as part of the divorce, like child custody, child support, alimony, division of assets.

Host 1:

So the vacate order is just one piece of a much larger puzzle.

Host 2:

Exactly. Yeah. It's a tool that can be used to address a specific problem during a specific point in time.

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

But it's not the end of the story.

Host 1:

You know, we've covered a lot of ground in this deep dive.

Host 2:

Yeah. We have.

Host 1:

It's been fascinating to learn about the ins and outs of vacate orders in Massachusetts.

Host 2:

It

Host 1:

And I think we've managed to dispel some of the myths and misconceptions

Host 2:

I agree.

Host 1:

Surrounding them.

Host 2:

We've explored the legal standards, the potential for misuse Right. The process for obtaining and challenging these orders

Host 1:

Uh-huh.

Host 2:

And even how they fit into the larger context of a divorce case.

Host 1:

And I think the key takeaway here is that while vacate orders can be a powerful tool Yeah. For protecting people in these volatile situations Uh-huh. They're not a one size fits all solution.

Host 2:

Right.

Host 1:

And they need to be used carefully and judiciously.

Host 2:

Well said.

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

And I add that anyone facing a situation Yeah. Where a vacate order might be necessary Uh-huh. Or if they find themselves subject to 1

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Should absolutely consult with an experienced attorney.

Host 1:

Absolutely.

Host 2:

Yeah. It's not something you wanna try to navigate on your own.

Host 1:

Not at all.

Host 2:

A skilled attorney can help you understand your rights

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

Protect your interests

Host 1:

Mhmm.

Host 2:

And make informed decisions

Host 1:

Yeah.

Host 2:

During a very challenging time.

Host 1:

Well, I think we've given our listeners a lot to think about today.

Host 2:

I hope so.

Host 1:

Hopefully, this deep dive has shed some light on this often misunderstood Yeah. Aspect of family law in Massachusetts.

Host 2:

It's a complex issue.

Host 1:

Yeah. It is.

Host 2:

But the more we understand about it

Host 1:

Right.

Host 2:

The better equipped we are to make sure these orders are being used fairly and effectively.

Host 1:

Well said.

Host 2:

Thank you.

Host 1:

Thanks for joining me on this deep dive.

Host 2:

It's been my pleasure.

Host 1:

It's been enlightening. Good. And to our listeners, thanks for tuning in.

Host 2:

Yes. Thank you.

Host 1:

We'll be back soon with another deep dive into a fascinating topic.

Host 2:

Sounds good.

Host 1:

Until then, stay curious.