Exclusive Use and Occupancy—or Sleep Divorce?
When couples decide to divorce, the first task is to separate their living spaces. For some, this means one partner fully moves out. But for others, especially those with children, this means establishing separate sleeping quarters—a "sleep divorce." This article discusses the issues that can arise when establishing the parameters of such an arrangement.
April 30, 2021 at 11:15 AM
8 minute read
Counsel who practice in the area of litigated divorce acknowledge that one of the early issues to be decided is which party will have pendente lite exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence. If the parties are unable to come to an agreement concerning that issue, a motion and hearing eventuates, leading to the decision on exclusive use and occupancy being made by the court. If the request for exclusive use and occupancy is not granted, both parties may remain in the marital residence, which is likely emotionally difficult. As discussed below, an arrangement known as the sleep divorce may provide helpful temporary relief.
The criteria for deciding which party will have exclusive use and occupancy of the marital residence has evolved over time. Monroe County Supreme Court Judge Dollinger, in the case of L.M.L v. H.T.N, 57 Misc.3d 1207(A), 68 N.Y.S.3D 379, (Table), 2017 WL 4507541, provided a thorough chronology of the exclusive use and occupancy evolution. Dollinger related that DRL §234, which gives the court discretion in determining exclusive use and occupancy, was derived from §1164-a of the former Civil Practice Act.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTortious Interference With a Contract; Retaliatory Eviction Defense; Illegal Lockout: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
8 minute readSkadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
- 2Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
- 3'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
- 4Polsinelli Picks Up Corporate Health Care Partner From Greenberg Traurig in LA
- 5Kirkland Lands in Phila., but Rate Pressure May Limit the High-Flying Firm's Growth Prospects
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250