Family Code Section 2337, Bifurcations of Marital Status, and Health Care

A messy divorce can take months, or in some cases, years, to complete. Complex issues of support, custody, visitation, property division, etc. can and do take time to resolve. However, many litigants involved in a divorce want to take care of the easiest part first, actually severing the legal relationship of man and wife. Our Family Code does provide an avenue to terminate the marital relationship even though many other issues in the case remain unresolved. Commonly called a “bifurcation and termination of marital status,” the Court is empowered to enter a Judgment of Dissolution severing the marital relationship and reserving jurisdiction over all other issues. This article will explore the legal authority that allows, and at the same time limits, one litigant’s right to be single again.

Family Code Section 2339(a) provides that in no case may any Court terminate marital status until six months have passed from the date of service of the summons and petition for dissolution, or when the Respondent first makes a general appearance, whichever occurs first. Commonly called a “cooling off period,” the six-month timeline was designed to allow parties time to consider whether divorce is actually in their best interests or if reconciliation is a possibility.

Assuming one party is certain that he/she wants a divorce, that party can file a motion to terminate marital status after the six-month waiting period. Public policy supports the early termination of marital status because it furthers the legislative intent that dissolution is not postponed simply because issues relating to property, support, custody, or attorney fees are not ready for decision. In furtherance of this policy, the moving party needs only to present slight evidence in support of a request to terminate marital status. Generally, the supporting declaration needs to allege reconciliation is not possible and that it would be in the parties’ best interests to dissolve the marriage without delay.

Sounds easy, right? Unfortunately, there is a catch. A Judge hearing a request by one party to terminate marital status is authorized to grant that request and impose numerous conditions on the Judgment of dissolution. As you can probably imagine, the status of man and wife carries with it many benefits and entitlements. For example, by virtue of being married, one spouse can qualify as a dependent for health care, be entitled to benefits from a pension or other qualified retirement instrument upon death of the other spouse, receive derivative Social Security benefits, etc.

Family Code Section 2337 is designed to limit the adverse consequences of an early termination of marital status. The theory behind this law is that although one spouse has the right to be single again, that right should not jeopardize or eliminate the other spouse’s rights that are dependent on marital status. Family Code Section 2337(c) lists conditions the Judge can impose on the moving party prior to granting the Judgment terminating marital status.

Often, the most important benefit of maintaining the legal relationship of man and wife is health care. When this legal relationship is terminated, a qualifying dependent spouse is in jeopardy of losing health care benefits from the other spouse. Therefore, Judges commonly impose a condition that the person requesting the termination of marital status maintain health care coverage for the other party and any minor children as long as the “party is legally able to do so.” This basically implies that the person must take no action to cancel or change any existing health care policy. However, the law takes it one step further. If the health care provider terminates benefits for the prior qualifying dependent, that “party or the party’s estate shall, at the party’s sole expense, purchase and maintain health and medical insurance coverage that is comparable to the existing health and medical insurance coverage” until Judgment on all other issues has been entered. This is where you want to be careful.

Take, for example, a couple in their sixties who just can’t seem to bear the thought of being married anymore. Husband files for divorce and after six months, files a motion to terminate marital status before the rest of the case is complete. Wife is a qualifying dependent on Husband’s existing health care policy. The Judge grants the termination of marital status and imposes the condition that Husband maintain existing health care, or if it is terminated, purchase comparable health care coverage. One month after the Judgment terminating marital status is entered, health care for Wife terminates because she is no longer a “Wife” and therefore, no longer a qualifying dependent. Now Husband needs to purchase another health care policy for Wife, which will presumably cost a lot of money considering Wife’s age/health. Husband must purchase and maintain this health care until the entire divorce is final, without the right to be reimbursed.

So, although our legislature has addressed the desire to become single again, they have also contemporaneously contemplated the disadvantages of doing so for the other spouse. In those situations where one party just can’t wait to be single again, he or she must become familiar with the conditions and possible consequences of Family Code Section 2337(c).