Charron v. Amaral

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Family Law

Family Lawloss of consortiumsame-sex marriageloss of consortiummarriage requirementsame-sex spousesGoodridgeretroactivity

Facts

Kalish and Charron were a same-sex couple who had lived together since 1992, exchanged rings in 1994, jointly raised and jointly adopted a child, shared finances, and executed legal documents naming each other in 1999. In December 2002, Charron sought treatment for a breast lump and in July 2003 was diagnosed with breast cancer; at that time the couple was not married. After Goodridge, they applied for a marriage license on the first day permitted, May 17, 2004, and married on May 20, 2004. Kalish sought damages for loss of consortium arising from the alleged malpractice involving Charron's injury.

Issue

May a same-sex spouse pursue a loss of consortium claim when the underlying personal injury accrued before the couple could legally marry, if the couple later married as soon as Massachusetts law allowed and can show they would have married earlier but for the legal prohibition? Also, does Goodridge apply retroactively to treat such a couple as married for purposes of consortium rights before they obtained a marriage license?

Rule

A loss of consortium claim requires, among other things, a legal relationship with the injured person; for adult couples, that legal relationship is marriage. Goodridge granted same-sex couples the right to marry prospectively after a specific date, but it did not treat committed same-sex couples as married before they obtained a marriage license and does not retroactively create spousal consortium rights for pre-marriage injuries.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Maine, Nora Kim and Elena Soto had lived together for eighteen years, jointly owned a home, and raised Elena's son together. In March 2018, Elena was seriously injured by alleged medical negligence at Pine Harbor Clinic, and the couple married in June 2019.

If Nora brings a loss of consortium claim based on Elena's 2018 injury, what is the most likely result?

Explanation. An adult claimant for loss of consortium must have a legal relationship with the injured person, and for adult couples that legal relationship is marriage. A later marriage does not cure the absence of marriage when the underlying injury accrued. The majority reaffirmed a clear boundary: committed cohabitation is not enough.