It is the unfortunate case that, in many divorces, the marital home is sold as part of the divorce proceedings. Sometimes, the decision is made for non-financial issues - the house is tied to too many memories and both parties decide that they are better off starting anew. More often than not, however, the financial circumstances are such that the house is simply unaffordable. Perhaps the party who wants to stay will no longer be able to afford the carrying costs; an unfortunate corollary of most divorces is that oftentimes one income or even two are insufficient to maintain two different households. Whatever the reason, often by agreement and sometimes by court order, the marital home is just ordered to be sold either during or after the divorce.
A Massachusetts state senator has filed a bill that could prohibit a divorcing parent from having sex in his or her own home. The bill states: "In divorce, separate, or 209A proceedings involving children and a marital home, the party remaining in the home shall not conduct a dating or sexual relationship within the home until a divorce is final and all financial and custody issues are resolved, unless the express permission is granted by the courts."
In many divorce cases, when one party tells the other that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no chance of reconciliation, the other party will voluntarily vacate the marital home. Often the primary caretaker of the minor children remains in the marital home with the minor children, and the other party moves out voluntarily to establish a second household in contemplation of engaging in a parenting plan that is in the best interests of the minor children. But what happens when the other party does not voluntarily vacate? What recourse is available to the requesting party to ask a Judge to intervene and issue to the opposing party orders to vacate the marital home?