Articles Posted in Cohabitation

In a previous blog, I promised that the Appellant Division was going to revisit the proof required to be presented before one could obtain discovery of a dependent former spouse’s social and financial circumstances; as of today June 17th, 2021, the case has been decided although not yet approved for publication.

Temple v. Temple ( A-0293-20) is an important decision for anyone seeking to terminate their alimony obligations based on their former spouse’s cohabitation. In Landau v. Landau, the appellant court indicated that before one was entitled to discovery or a hearing, regarding issues of cohabitation the proponent of this change in circumstance needed to prove evidence of said change. The problem with Landau was that it did not address what proofs were needed in order to meet the requirement and move forward with the discovery phase.

The Trial Judge on Temple found that to be successful on an application one needed to prove all six factors set forth in the statute as things to evaluate when determining if a prima facia case was established. The Appellant Court accepted our argument that one needed not to prove all six statutory factors to establish a prima facia case but must only establish sufficient evidence so that the trier of fact may conclude that the parties have “ undertaken duties and privileges that are commonly associated with marriage or civil unions.”

On June 8th, I argued a case of significant importance in the Appellant Division. Although I have not received a decision as of yet, I am still of the belief I was heard. The case involved an application from the supporting spouse to terminate alimony based on the cohabitation of his former spouse. Although I did not represent my client at the trial level I believe that my predecessor made the necessary arguments allowing me to present the important issues to the higher court. The Trial Judge had misread the recently decided, Landau decision, believing that the fact in Landau created a litmus test as to what constituted a Prima Facia case allowing discovery and a plenary hearing as to the issue of cohabitation. In fact, Landau provides that before one is entitled to discovery and a plenary hearing one must establish a prima facia case.

A prima facia case is one where the court is to consider the issues presented by the proponent of a proposition in the light most favorable to said, petitioner. In considering the assertions of the petitioner the defenses offered by the opposition are not to be given weight. Since the opposition is not required to give evidence, their election to give selected evidence is should not be considered as the issue is not ultimately a success on the merits but rather the sufficiency of the assertion to justify a full examination of the issue.  

The idea of a prima facia case as an entry ticket is based on the privacy right of the dependent spouse who ought not to be forced to divulge intimate details absent the presentation of more than innuendo. In my case, there was significant proof including a private investigator’s report, statements by the paramour of the closeness of the relationship, and some economic proof. The initial problem was that the Trial Court had misread the law, this error of the law was compounded by the trial courts weighing the defenses of the dependent’s former spouse and finding her explanations more credible. 

Cohabitation of a dependent spouse with another in a relationship tantamount to marriage may lead to the suspension or termination of a payer’s obligation. During COVID many people have begun nesting for companionship and resource sharing. Ma

ny of these new “quasi-family” unions are built upon established long term relationships; others are built on less firm footing. The question arises: do these arrangements give rise to the right of the payer to examine the nature of the relationship and the appropriateness of some financial relief?

An application to terminate or suspend alimony based on cohabitation is provided for by  Statute and Case Law and is frequently refined and defined by Property Settlement Agreements. Generally if one believes their spouse is cohabiting and the spouse is not conceding the fact, a  motion must be made to the Family Part seeking relief or a hearing regarding the payee’s status.

Ascertaining whether a supported spouse is cohabiting with a romantic partner in such a way that it 3e728f0b3d0e026b62a8cb4b38918e95-300x200constitutes a changed circumstance warranting a modification of alimony is often an issue that family courts have address.  In 2014, the New Jersey Legislature modified the alimony statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n), to codify factors to determine whether a former spouse is cohabiting with a romantic partner such that an alimony award may be modified.  Those factors are:

(1) Intertwined finances such as joint bank accounts and other joint holdings or liabilities;

(2) Sharing or joint responsibility for living expenses;

I was at a social event recently. A woman attending that event, after learning that I was a divorce attorney, came up to me. She told me that her ex-husband had just filed court papers seeking to modify or terminate her alimony payments. With indignation in her voice she explained that “He can’t do that because I have permanent alimony!” It was obvious that this person had taken the word “permanent” literally, and believed that her alimony rights were forever immutable. She seemed genuinely shocked when I explained, without getting into the details of her case, that even “permanent” alimony may be modified or terminated upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances. Continue reading ›

When you mention Private Investigators in the context of a matrimonial dispute, most people think of what is portrayed in movies or in television of a gumshoe Detective tailing a car or hiding in the bushes, trying to get the goods on a suspected cheating spouse. While hiring a private investigator to determine whether a spouse may be engaged in an adulterous relationship remains a common reason to do so, there are a multitude of other reasons why the use of a private investigator can be an important tool for the client as well as the attorney in the preparation of a matrimonial case. This blog post will discuPrivate Investigatorss some of these circumstances, as well as some practical and legal considerations affecting the use of private investigators. Continue reading ›

Approximately one year ago, my colleague wrote a blog post raising awareness and spreading concern about how the communications and content found on one’s social media could potentially be used against them in a variety of ways in Court.  It is no big surprise that with the explosion of social media and the countless ways individuals can communicate in an ever evolving world of technology that those communications are being monitored for potential use in litigation. Continue reading ›

When it comes to romantic couples “living together”, attitudes have changed from what they were a few decades ago.   The negative stigma attached to couples cohabiting outside of marriage has waned and fewer people view unmarried couples who live together as inappropriate or immoral.   In fact, many couples view “living together” as a way to live without marriage, as part of dating, as a means to reduce expenses or as a useful step or “test run” so to speak in the road towards marriage. Continue reading ›

Many in today’s society would view the court’s treatment of dogs and other pets as merely property to be equitably distributed in the breakup of relationship as antiquated, given the increasing role that pets are play in today’s society. A common scenario playing out in relationships across the Garden State today is that many couples begin to cohabit and soon after get a dog or another pet to raise together.  Those of us on social media regularly see pictures posted of couples and their dogs in which they are categorized as their “baby” or loved one.  Couples spend significant time in researching which pet to purchase or rescue from the shelter.   They spend significant time and money on training and caring for an animal that many consider to be a member of the family. Continue reading ›

bill has passed the New Jersey Senate and Assembly and which is now before the governor that intends to amend the current alimony statute, N.J.S.A. 2A34-23.   At present, the alimony statute allows a court to consider (1) permanent alimony; (2) limited duration alimony; (3) rehabilitative alimony; and (4) reimbursement alimony.   Under permanent alimony, there is technically no end to alimony until the payor or payee spouse dies or the payee spouse remarries.   The new proposed alimony statute would replace “permanent alimony” with “open durational” alimony. Continue reading ›