Divorce Lawyers New York - Recent Family Law Decisons (15)
RECENT FAMILY LAW DECISIONS (15)
Termination of Maintenance
This section, which authorizes termination of a spouse’s maintenance award on grounds of cohabitation, similarly requires a court to deny the cohabiting spouse’s original request for maintenance if cohabitation is proven.
Where respondent’s counsel conceded respondent was cohabiting, neither the trial court or the appellate court had to evaluate changes in recipient spouse’s need for support in order to determine whether respondent’s relationship amounted to cohabiting which justified denying her maintenance.
A former spouse’s obligation to pay maintenance can be terminated by order of court whenever the recipient spouse has entered into a conjugal relationship with another person, whether by legal or other means.
Continuing Basis
Not Shown
Where the wife’s paramour bought groceries for her and her children and bought some clothing for her, he took his meals with her and her children, he worked with her to clean and maintain their residence, she did his laundry and cooked his meals, he moved into her residence in October and left in January, and after moving out, phoned weekly, Christmas gifts to her children were signed “Larry and Mom,” and she spent the holidays at his parents’ home, the evidence was insufficient to establish cohabitation on a continuing basis.
Effect
The trial court’s assertion that “[o]nce you live with a man, you have voided your change to get alimony,” was an overbroad and erroneous interpretation of legislative intent.
Factors
Not Shown
Where there was no evidence of a sexual relationship, no evidence of sharing expenses, no evidence of the alleged cohabitant paying any of respondent’s expenses the evidence was insufficient evidence to warrant a termination of maintenance.
The fact that wife’s relationship was terminated before hearing and lasted only approximately six months weighed against finding a conjugal relationship.
Where the nature of an ex-wife’s employment as a full-time housekeeper and nurse required she live in her employer’s house, and there was no indication that either she or her employer considered themselves to have a husband-wife relationship, the ex-wife’s relationship with the employer did not justify termination of all support on the basis of cohabitation.
There was ample support for the view that plaintiff’s need for support had not been materially affected and that defendant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that plaintiff was involved in a de facto husband-wife relationship with her landlord; accordingly, the trial court’s finding that plaintiff was not cohabiting with another person on a resident, continuing and conjugal basis was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
