Is there a time frame that would constitute cohabitation?

This case if for alimony modification. Respondents new partner has his own apartment that he pays for including utilities and all of his mail is delivered to his apartment and has no financial bearing or responsibilities at the residence in question. Is there a specific amount of days in a certain period of time that is allowable and not considered cohabitation and would effect future alimony payments?

Asked on July 13, 2012 under Family Law, California

Answers:

Cameron Norris, Esq. / Law Office of Gary W. Norris

Answered 8 years ago | Contributor

I am guessing that you are looking to use California Family Code Section 4323, which describes a rebuttable presumption of a decreased need for support when the former spouse is "cohabiting." 

There is no black and white definition of what cohabiting means.  Most judges use the plain meaning of sharing a household.  To be cohabiting a couple must be sharing expenses and having a relationship.  See In re Marriage of Thweatt (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 530 (finding that cohabitation requires more than expense sharing, but also a sexual or romantic relationship).  Also see In re Marriage of Regnery (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1367; In re Marriage of Lieb (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 629.

One thing to remember is that even if you prove cohabitation--there is only a decreased need for support in relation to the amount of the expenses shouldered by the cohabitant--it isn't grounds for wiping out the support order or anything.


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.