cohabitation

[caj]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I have been divorced from my ex husband since 2005. He has stopped alimony because he thinks I'm cohabitating. I have a boyfriend who has his own home who may come over 3-4 day/week. What defines cohabitation in California???

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I have been divorced from my ex husband since 2005. He has stopped alimony because he thinks I'm cohabitating. I have a boyfriend who has his own home who may come over 3-4 day/week. What defines cohabitation in California???

If you actually have a court order for alimony, your ex can't arbitrarily decide to stop paying - he has to petition the court to modify the order based upon (in this case) cohabitation.

 

[caj]

He was in the military and now is not. Since I've had a long term boyfriend he says we are cohabitating and does not have to pay alimony base on our MSA which states alimony stops when I remarry or if cohabitating.

 

[caj]

cohabitating

Define cohabitation . .

 

[Proserpina]

Define cohabitation . .

Hold on, let me google that real quick for you.

 

[caj]

Are you kidding. . . a legal definition. My boyfriend doesn't live with me, but provides some financial assitance.

 

[ecmst12]

You can google it. You can google ANYTHING.

 

[caj]

Help me. If boyfriend is providing some financial assistance, is this cohabitating and grounds to loose alimony.

 

[caj]

By the way , I did google it. And no straight answer. It just talks about traditional divorce arrangements. You are an attorney, correct???

 

[Proserpina]

Help me. If boyfriend is providing some financial assistance, is this cohabitating and grounds to loose alimony.

No, I'm not an attorney.

Having a boyfriend does NOT equate to cohabitation in any state. If he maintains a separate address and - truthfully - DOES actually stay there for the majority of the week, it is also not considered cohabitation (for the purposes of spousal support, anyway). However, because he IS providing some kind of support, your ex may try to use this.

Interestingly enough, cohabitation alone is not necessarily grounds to stop paying alimony anyway - at least not in California.

Now, exactly - word for word - WHAT does your order actually say about it?

 

[CourtClerk]

Interestingly enough, cohabitation alone is not necessarily grounds to stop paying alimony anyway - at least not in California.

Pssstttt....

4323. (a) (1) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties in
writing, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of
proof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party
is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. Upon a determination
that circumstances have changed, the court may modify or terminate
the spousal support as provided for in Chapter 6 (commencing with
Section 3650) of Part 1.
(2) Holding oneself out to be the husband or wife of the person
with whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitute
cohabitation as the term is used in this subdivision.

 

[Ohiogal]

Are you kidding. . . a legal definition. My boyfriend doesn't live with me, but provides some financial assitance.

Are you kidding? You come on here and make demands? You want to demand things PAY an attorney. You want the volunteers to give you information then you ask nicely and try to have some manners. Okay? A five year old knows about please and thank you. I guess you don't.
Now look at the following:

G041233
In re Marriage of Kroft

Also in H033186
People v. Rojas
:

The term "cohabitants" as used in section 273.5 means two unrelated persons "living together in a substantial relationship ù one manifested, minimally, by permanence and sexual or amorous intimacy." (People v. Holifield (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 993, 1000; see People v. Taylor (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 11, 18; People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1333; CALCRIM No. 840, pp. 600-601.) "The element of 'permanence' in the definition refers only to the underlying 'substantial relationship,' not to the actual living arrangement." (People v. Moore, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 1334 [concept of "permanence" does not require exclusivity]; see id. at p. 1335 ["for purposes of criminal liability under section 273.5, a defendant may cohabit simultaneously with two or more people at different locations, during the same time frame, if he maintains substantial ongoing relationships with each and lives with each for significant periods"].)

"ection 273.5 requires something more than a platonic, rooming-house arrangement." (People v. Holifield, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 999.) But it does not require a person hold himself or herself out as "the husband or wife of the person with whom one is cohabiting." (§ 273.5, subd. (b).) Proof of a sexual relationship is not required. (See People v. Ballard (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 311, 319.) The non-exclusive factors for determining whether people are cohabitating include (1) sexual relations between the parties while sharing the same residence, (2) sharing of income or expenses, (3) joint use or ownership of property, (4) the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife, (5) the continuity of the relationship, and (6) the length of the relationship. (See People v. Holifield, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1001; see also CALCRIM No. 840, pp. 600-601.) "The cases addressing the cohabitation element of section 273.5 'have interpreted it broadly, refusing to impose any requirement of a "quasi-marital relationship." ' (People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1333....)" (People v. Belton (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 432, 437-438.)

It is possible since you and your boyfriend have sex, share expenses, have joint use of the property, a continuity of the relationship that he might be able to prove cohabitation. Even if your boyfriend has his own place.

2009-CA-0518.033
PEOPLE v. CARREA
The above case further defines cohabitation in California law and does not require people to live together nightly or even meet all six above. You may find that you will NOT have alimony coming to you if this goes back to court.

Now, try to get some manners and be polite.

 

[Ohiogal]

Pssstttt....

I do not dispute that at all (how could I when it is the law?). I will say that according to the court cases I just read (I quoted some of them and yes they are dealing with DV but they use the legal definition of cohabitation which can be interpreted across the spectrum) they stated that the courts needed to expland the definition of cohabitation to include same sex relationships in order to pass constitutional muster. the dates on the court cases were end of December 2009 -- only a few weeks ago.

Oh and OT -- you haven't called me since the night I was standing in the ER. I tried calling you to clue you in on what transpired and even left a message.

 

[Proserpina]

Pssstttt....

?! Oh good heavens. I do apologise - though I'm trying to dig up again whatever it was which seemed to have triggered that erroneous belief

 

[CourtClerk]

Oh and OT -- you haven't called me since the night I was standing in the ER. I tried calling you to clue you in on what transpired and even left a message.

Sorry, stuff has just been going from bad to worse over here. I got your message this morning when I cleared my voicemail. I'll call you today.... just give me a couple of minutes. I just lost $100... somewhere.