Cohabitation. If we were to take a survey, we would bet, most responses would be the same. Surely everyone would guess that cohabitation simply means living together. That’s one answer. Actually, it’s not quite that simple.
The definition of cohabitation becomes particularly important in New Jersey divorce cases. For many, it means the end of alimony. We’ll take a look at a recent court decision on the subject and review the law.
What Constitutes Cohabitation in New Jersey?
The obvious meaning of cohabitation appears to be two parties living together. But, there’s more to it than that. New Jersey’s alimony laws received an update in the last couple of years and provided some guidelines concerning cohabitation. They include:
- Mixing finances, such as joint bank accounts and other joint holdings or liabilities;
- Sharing or joint responsibility for living expenses;
- Recognition of the relationship in the couple’s social and family circle
- Living together, the frequency of contact, the duration of the relationship, and other indications of a mutually supportive intimate personal relationship;
- Sharing household chores
- Whether the recipient of alimony has received an enforceable promise of support from another person
New Supreme Case Reviews Cohabitation Issue
We introduced you to the Quinns before in a prior article. At that time, Cathleen Quinn and David J. Quinn were before the New Jersey Appellate Division. To help you better understand the case, we will start with some history. Most recently, their case was decided by the New Jersey State Supreme Court.
The Quinns married on August 27, 1983. Their divorce was finalized on January 3, 2006, and included a property settlement agreement (PSA). Both of the former spouses had their own attorneys and agreed to the terms of the settlement.
At the time of the divorce, David’s income was nearly ten times that of Cathleen’s. David agreed to pay his ex $2,643 in alimony biweekly, subject to annual increases for inflation. The settlement agreement also included reasons that the alimony would stop, including the “Wife’s death, the Husband’s death, the Wife’s remarriage, or the Wife’s cohabitation, per case or statutory law, whichever shall first occur.”
In 2007, David filed a motion with the court to terminate alimony. The basis for his request was that Cathleen was involved in a romantic relationship that constituted cohabitation. Cathleen admitted she had a boyfriend. Since Cathleen was not living with her romantic interest, she did not feel they were cohabitants.
The court felt otherwise. It evaluated the relationship and determined that it was exclusive from January 2008 through April 2010. Ultimately, Cathleen’s relationship with her romantic interest broke up. The trial court decided rather than terminate alimony payments, it would suspend them.
This would be backdated during the time that Cathleen was deemed to have cohabitated with the other individual. To make up for the difference, David’s ongoing payments were lowered. The Appellate Division felt the trial judge had used proper discretion.
David did not agree and brought the matter before the Supreme Court. The Property Settlement Agreement did not say anything about suspending alimony if cohabitation did not work out. The same would be true if a subsequent marriage resulted in divorce. Why should his alimony obligations continue?
The Supreme Court agreed with David’s contentions. Since the Property Settlement Agreement stated that alimony would cease upon cohabitation, it should not have been reinstated.
Contact Us
Have questions about a post-judgment divorce matter? Sam Stoia has extensive experience handling these types of cases. Contact us for an appointment to discuss your case.