After the parties' New Jersey divorce, the ex-wife started cohabiting with another man. The New Jersey divorce judge granted the ex-husband's motion terminate alimony. On appeal, the decision is affirmed. There had been a plenary hearing and the factual findings about cohabitation were "unassailable." The ex-wife’s assertions that the trial judge was biased and prejudiced were "totally lacking in merit." Sacher v. Sacher, March 2, 2007
The New Jersey divorce judge should not resolve factual disputes on the basis of conflicting certifications purporting to demonstrate whether the ex-wife was "residing with an unrelated person," which, pursuant to a clause in the Property Settlement Agreement, would be grounds for termination of alimony payments. Moreover, the language of such a clause must be construed reasonably, so as not to reach an absurd result and so as not to ignore the qualification in Konzelman v. Konzelman, that a mere romantic, casual or social relationship is not sufficient to justify the enforcement of a provision terminating alimony. Palmieri v. Palmieri, ___ N.J. ___ (App. Div. 2006); New Jersey App. Div., October 31, 2006
Following a hearing, the Family Part judge appropriately denied plaintiff's application seeking termination of alimony as a result of the alleged cohabitation of defendant, his former wife, with an unrelated male "as man and wife" for a four-year period. Although the judge found that plaintiff had every reason to suspect cohabitation, she found that the conditions for termination of alimony were not proven, under the definition in the original New Jersey divorce agreement. Memmott v. Memmott, New Jersey App. Div., May 12, 2006
She was in fact cohabiting when the parties signed their New Jersey divorce agreement. However, the ex-husband did not learn of her cohabitation until two years later. The cohabitation and its concealment constituted bad faith and justified a retroactive termination of alimony, requiring her to reimburse to him the alimony he had paid her. Moreover, she was not entitled to any offset for the tax credits he received for paying the alimony. Duchemin, etc. v. Duchemin, New Jersey App. Div., July 8, 2005
He's unemployed and can't earn wages anywhere near the level stipulated in their New Jersey divorce agreement. She has no present need for alimony because she's cohabiting with another partner who provides financial benefits. The trial judge was wrong to merely reduce alimony. Instead, alimony should have been suspended entirely. If the circumstances substantially change, she's free to apply for reinstatement of the alimony. Rush v. Rush, New Jersey App. Div., June 28, 2005
The ex-husband is entitled to discovery and a plenary hearing on his application to terminate alimony based on the ex-wife's cohabitation. The case is remanded based on prima facie evidence that the ex-wife is cohabiting with two unrelated males, is sexually involved with one, and receives financial contributions from both. Schwefringhaus v. Schwefringhaus, New Jersey App. Div., June 1, 2005
The trial court was wrong when it refused to terminate the ex-husband's alimony. The ex-wife was cohabiting with her paramour as man and wife with all but the marriage certificate. Her failure to provide her paramour’s financial information intentionally prevented the motion to terminate alimony from being properly evaluated. If she wants to reinstate the alimony, the missing information must be provided, and she will have the burden of proving her alleged financial dependence on her ex-husband. Lande v. Lande, New Jersey App. Div., May 26, 2005
Defining cohabitation is not easy. How much "living together" is enough to trigger the suspension or termination of alimony payments under New Jersey divorce law? That was the issue in this case, where the trial judge was reversed for not properly applying controlling legal principles when he ruled that [because the settlement agreement did not define cohabitation] "it lets me pick what I think it represents, and staying there less than half the time isn't cohabitation with me." This was an overly restrictive approach that placed undue emphasis on a common residence and failed to address other important factors in Konzelman v. Konzelman. Izenberg v. Izenberg, A-1804-03T2, New Jersey App. Div., January 31, 2005.
Cohabitation is one way to either halt or reduce alimony. In turn, that reduction or halt can be either temporary or permanent, depending on the factual circumstances, and, in the case of a written agreement, the language and provisions the parties agreed upon. In this case, the payor ex-husband made a prima facie showing of the ex-wife’s cohabitation with another person. This showing entitled him to conduct discovery on the issues of how, when and under what economic circumstances the cohabitation was occurring. Because the trial judge did not permit that discovery, a reversal and remand were required. Moncrieffe v. Moncrieffe, New Jersey App. Div., November 9, 2004.
