For couples who maintain homes in both Massachusetts and New York, deciding where to file for divorce can have significant legal and practical consequences. While both states recognize uncontested divorce and allow couples to dissolve their marriage without lengthy litigation, their procedures, timelines, and support calculations differ in meaningful ways. Understanding these distinctions can help spouses choose the jurisdiction that best aligns with their financial and emotional priorities.
The History of No-Fault Divorce
Both Massachusetts and New York once adhered to fault-based divorce systems that required one spouse to prove wrongdoing, such as adultery or cruelty. Massachusetts was among the early adopters of no-fault divorce, adding “irretrievable breakdown of the marriage” as a ground in 1975. New York, by contrast, was the last state in the nation to adopt no-fault divorce—doing so only in 2010.
As scholars Jane Felton and Barbara Schweiger note, “the slow and uneven acceptance of no-fault divorce across the United States reflected deeper anxieties about the meaning of marriage and moral responsibility.”1 They observe that New York’s delay “illustrated the enduring influence of a moralized vision of marital dissolution, long after other states had moved toward pragmatism.”1 The late adoption of no-fault in New York still shapes the tone of its divorce procedures today, which tend to be more formal and document-heavy than in Massachusetts.
Jurisdiction and Residency Requirements
Both states impose residency requirements that determine whether a court has jurisdiction to grant a divorce.
In Massachusetts, a couple can file for divorce if the grounds for the divorce occurred in Massachusetts and at least one spouse lives in the state, or if the couple last lived together in Massachusetts and one spouse still resides there. For most uncontested divorces, this means at least one spouse must be a Massachusetts resident at the time of filing. According to Massachusetts mediator Attorney Julia Rueschemeyer, even if the couple never lived as a couple in Massachusetts, they can still divorce there if the breakup occurred there.
In New York, the residency requirement is more stringent. A spouse must have lived in the state for at least one year if the marriage took place there, or for two years if the marriage occurred elsewhere. This longer residency period can make Massachusetts the more convenient option for couples who split their time between homes.
The Process and Timeline for an Uncontested Divorce
An uncontested divorce is one in which both spouses agree on all major issues—property division, alimony, child support, and parenting arrangements—and sign a written agreement reflecting that understanding.
In Massachusetts, uncontested divorces are filed under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208 §1A, commonly called a “joint petition for divorce.” The couple files a separation agreement, financial statements, and an affidavit of irretrievable breakdown. A brief hearing—often just 10 to 15 minutes—is scheduled, after which the court issues a Judgment of Divorce Nisi that becomes final after 120 days. Most uncontested divorces in Massachusetts are finalized within four to six months.
New York has a more bureaucratic process. Even an uncontested divorce requires numerous documents, including a summons, verified complaint, affidavit of regularity, and judgment of divorce. After filing, the case must pass through a clerk’s office review before reaching a judge for signature. Depending on county backlog, this can take anywhere from three to nine months. As Professor Laurie Kohn observes, “Our divorce systems too often create delay by design—an inertia that harms families by prolonging uncertainty and conflict.”2 New York’s relatively slow administrative process exemplifies that critique.
Differences in Alimony (Spousal Support)
Massachusetts overhauled its alimony laws in 2012 with the Alimony Reform Act, introducing formulas that link the duration of alimony to the length of the marriage. For example, marriages lasting under five years typically lead to alimony lasting no more than half that duration. The law also encourages termination of alimony when the recipient cohabits with another partner or when the payor reaches retirement age.
New York’s Domestic Relations Law §236(B) similarly provides formulas for calculating temporary and post-divorce maintenance, but the state retains greater judicial discretion. The formula is income-based, using percentages of the parties’ incomes up to a statutory cap (currently around $203,000). However, judges may deviate from the formula for “justice” or “equitable considerations.”
Practically, Massachusetts’ alimony framework is more predictable, while New York’s may yield higher awards in cases where one spouse earns substantially more. As J. Herbie DiFonzo observed in his review of matrimonial practice, “New York’s hybrid system of presumptive formulas and broad judicial discretion reflects an unresolved tension between efficiency and equity.”3
Child Support Calculations
Both states rely on income-based formulas, but Massachusetts’ Child Support Guidelines cap combined parental income at $400,000, while New York’s Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) applies percentages to combined parental income up to $183,000—with discretionary additions beyond that.
Massachusetts uses a worksheet-driven approach that tends to yield slightly lower child support figures for high-income families than New York’s model. New York applies a strict percentage (17% for one child, 25% for two, and so on), often resulting in higher obligations. Additionally, Massachusetts allows for more flexible adjustments based on parenting time, health insurance, and extraordinary expenses.
Choosing a Jurisdiction
For couples with legitimate ties to both states, the decision may hinge on three key factors: speed, predictability, and support outcomes. Massachusetts offers a faster, simpler, and more predictable uncontested process with clearer alimony duration limits. New York, while slower and more document-intensive, can produce higher support awards and may better accommodate complex financial circumstances.
Ultimately, the right choice depends on each couple’s goals. Those prioritizing efficiency and finality may prefer Massachusetts; those concerned with maximizing support may lean toward New York. As Grossman and Green remind us, “No-fault divorce was never about making divorce easy—it was about making it fair.”⁴ That balance between fairness and efficiency continues to define how each state approaches the dissolution of marriage.
References
- Felton, Jane J., and Barbara A. Schweiger. “Toward a More Perfect Dissolution: The History of American Divorce Law and Its Ghosts in Contemporary Practice.” J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law 37 (2024): 501.
- Kohn, Laurie S. “Justice Delayed by Design: The Harms of Our Protracted Divorce System.” Villanova Law Review 70 (2025): 169.
- DiFonzo, J. Herbie. “Changing Matrimonial Practice in 21st Century New York: A Report of the 2017 Matrimonial Bar Summit.” Family Court Review 56 (2018): 626.
- Grossman, Joanna L., and Elicia Grilley Green. “No-Fault Divorce: The Case Against Repeal.” (2018).
