## Facts

- David Gonzalez and Steven Green, a same-sex couple, began cohabiting in New York around 2001.
- Green had substantial assets and income; Gonzalez was a student with little or no income, and Green provided significant gifts, including two automobiles and a ski house titled in Gonzalez’s name.
- The parties participated in a marriage ceremony in Massachusetts on February 14, 2005, and then lived primarily in Westchester County, New York.
- After the relationship deteriorated, the parties executed a detailed separation agreement in September 2005, prepared by Green’s attorney.
- The agreement addressed division of real and personal property and required Green to pay Gonzalez a one-time lump sum of $780,000 as the only support or maintenance payment between them.
- In January 2006, Gonzalez filed in New York Supreme Court seeking a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.
- Green moved for summary judgment dismissing the divorce complaint based on lack of a valid marriage and sought rescission of the separation agreement on contract theories including mutual mistake and lack of consideration.

## Issues

1. Whether the Massachusetts same-sex marriage between New York domiciliaries was void under Massachusetts law and therefore could not support a New York divorce action.
2. Whether a separation agreement executed by the parties is enforceable as a contract if the marriage is void.
3. Whether the separation agreement was voidable due to mutual mistake about marital status or lack of consideration.

## Decision

- The court declared, sua sponte, that the Massachusetts marriage was null and void under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 207, § 11 because the parties were nonresidents intending to reside in New York, where such a marriage would have been void at the time.
- The court granted summary judgment dismissing the divorce action because a void marriage leaves no marital status to dissolve.
- The court denied rescission and upheld the separation agreement as valid and enforceable.
- The court found the agreement was supported by consideration and reflected a negotiated settlement resolving the parties’ property and financial disputes.

## Legal Principles

- A jurisdiction may deny divorce relief where the alleged marriage is void ab initio and thus does not create a marital status subject to dissolution.
- Under Massachusetts’ nonresident “evasion” statute (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 207, § 11), a marriage contracted in Massachusetts by parties who reside and intend to continue to reside elsewhere is null and void if the marriage would be void in their home jurisdiction at the time of contracting.
- Cohabitation does not bar parties from entering enforceable agreements; same-sex partners may contract to allocate property and resolve financial claims arising from relationship dissolution.
- A contract will not be rescinded for mutual mistake unless the mistake concerns an essential assumption that materially affects the agreed exchange; an erroneous belief about marital status does not necessarily defeat an agreement primarily settling property and financial rights.
- Consideration may consist of mutual promises, releases, transfers of property interests, and payment obligations; public policy favors enforcing voluntary settlements that resolve disputes without extended litigation.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the divorce complaint because the parties’ Massachusetts marriage was void under Massachusetts law given their New York domicile and New York’s then-existing treatment of same-sex marriage, but it enforced their separation agreement as a valid, supported, and policy-favored contract settling property and financial matters independent of marital status.


Gonzalez v. Green, 14 Misc. 3d 641, 831 N.Y.S.2d 856 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2006)