Cohabitation with your significant other will end spousal support payments
If there is a provision in your Judgment of Divorce that terminates your right to spousal support payments “upon cohabitation with an unrelated male,” then it’s important you understand how the Michigan courts define “cohabitation.” And the Michigan Court of Appeals recently offered valuable guidance in this respect.
In Hermann v Hermann, Docket No. 306568 (October 16, 2012), the Court determined that a woman seeking alimony payments was not entitled to those payments because she was “cohabitating” with an unrelated male. The Court found that the meaning of “cohabitation” included a relationship where a woman lives with an unrelated male on a permanent and continuous basis for more than one year, stores all of her belongings at the residence, engages in a sexual relationship with him, and relies on him for financial support.
In Hermann, the Court of Appeals relied on Smith v Smith, 278 Mich App 198 (2008), and reaffirmed the validity of the Smith three-prong test to determine “cohabitation.” The Smithtotality-of-the-circumstances test weighs three factors. The first factor is an examination of the woman’s living arrangements with the unrelated male, which considers whether the couple shared a common residence. The second factor examines the couple’s relationship, which takes into account whether the relationship appeared to be permanent. And finally, the Court looks into the couple’s financial arrangements, which examines whether the couple shared expenses, maintained joint property or accounts, and whether one party supports the other.
If after weighing these three factors, the reviewing court determines that the woman is “cohabitating” with an unrelated male, she is no longer entitled to alimony payments if the Judgment contained cohabitation as a terminating circumstance. Thus, it’s important to understand the alimony terms of your Judgment of Divorce.
Wouldn’t these provisions be altered or amended based on the ruling of same-sex marriage or be unconstitutional ? It seems somewhat fair and unfair to penalize cohabiting couples, fairness in certain areas such as alimony and support, but unfair because cohabiting couples do not get certain benefits of marriage such as Social Security, tax free treatment of estates,spousal refusal, etc.
Hello Alex,
Thanks for your comment. Your point is well made. It shows us that the law is certainly in flux. The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges (the decision on same sex marriage) has impact on many areas of our modem day lives.
However, the language of the Judgment of Divorce is, in the overwhelming cases, a drafting exercise which needs to address things that may happen in the future which may affect the lives of the parties. Perhaps a careful drafting of the language of the consent Judgment of Divorce would address what happens if the party receiving alimony or spousal support “cohabitated” with an unrelated “person” in a marital relationship.