cohabitation and shared expense

[himbald]

What is the name of your state? NC

My fiancé_s ex stopped paying alimony about 10 months ago under the claim that she and I have been _cohabitating_. When we got engaged (about 10 months ago) her ex decided that we were _cohabitating_ and he refused to pay her another cent in alimony which he expressed both informally and formally through his attorney which is the same one that handled his side of their _out of court_ divorce. About 8 months ago she retained the same attorney who handled her side of the arbitration a few years back to go after her ex for the unpaid alimony. COHABITATION is one of the few terms listed in the official divorce agreement where her ex husband would no longer have to pay alimony. From all my fiancé and I can gather "cohabitate" means LIVING TOGETHER. We have never lived together and we rarely even get the chance to sleep together (maybe twp dozen times in two years) because she has full custody of her teenage children. On the rare occasion that her kids are out of town (with their Dad usually) my fiancé and I can sleep together at either her or my residence. The document states absolutely nothing about _getting engaged_ or _sharing intimate relations in one another_s separate abodes".

I was served a subpoena (via cell phone - County Sheriffs office) by my fiancés ex husbands attorney yesterday to attend the deposition this week. My fiancé had her pre-depo preparation meeting and was told by her attorney that it did not seem as though her ex had a case since we are not living together. However, we have been sharing a cell phone account (she added a phone to her account for me and we talk free) for over a year. I have been paying her 35.00 a month (pre paid every 6 months by personal check) for that addition to her account. That is the only shared expense that could possibly make us appear as if we have been _cohabitating_. Her attorney told her that this shared expense _probably_ would not hurt her case. Is anyone here aware if splitting a daily used service like a cell phone account _could be_ damning in the sense of disproving a cohabitation claim in an alimony case? We are not cohabitaing and i would think that having to communicate via phone all the time because we can not actually be together would be a plus not a minus in proving that we are not cohabitating . . .

Thanks In Advance folks. )

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by himbald

What is the name of your state? NC

My fiancé_s ex stopped paying alimony about 10 months ago under the claim that she and I have been _cohabitating_. When we got engaged (about 10 months ago) her ex decided that we were _cohabitating_ and he refused to pay her another cent in alimony which he expressed both informally and formally through his attorney which is the same one that handled his side of their _out of court_ divorce. About 8 months ago she retained the same attorney who handled her side of the arbitration a few years back to go after her ex for the unpaid alimony. COHABITATION is one of the few terms listed in the official divorce agreement where her ex husband would no longer have to pay alimony. From all my fiancé and I can gather "cohabitate" means LIVING TOGETHER. We have never lived together and we rarely even get the chance to sleep together (maybe twp dozen times in two years) because she has full custody of her teenage children. On the rare occasion that her kids are out of town (with their Dad usually) my fiancé and I can sleep together at either her or my residence. The document states absolutely nothing about _getting engaged_ or _sharing intimate relations in one another_s separate abodes".

I was served a subpoena (via cell phone - County Sheriffs office) by my fiancés ex husbands attorney yesterday to attend the deposition this week. My fiancé had her pre-depo preparation meeting and was told by her attorney that it did not seem as though her ex had a case since we are not living together. However, we have been sharing a cell phone account (she added a phone to her account for me and we talk free) for over a year. I have been paying her 35.00 a month (pre paid every 6 months by personal check) for that addition to her account. That is the only shared expense that could possibly make us appear as if we have been _cohabitating_. Her attorney told her that this shared expense _probably_ would not hurt her case. Is anyone here aware if splitting a daily used service like a cell phone account _could be_ damning in the sense of disproving a cohabitation claim in an alimony case? We are not cohabitaing and i would think that having to communicate via phone all the time because we can not actually be together would be a plus not a minus in proving that we are not cohabitating . . .

Thanks In Advance folks. )

When do you plan to marry her?

[LdiJ]

Sharing a cell phone account is NOT proof of cohabitation.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by himbald

What is the name of your state? NC

My fiancé_s ex stopped paying alimony about 10 months ago under the claim that she and I have been _cohabitating_. When we got engaged (about 10 months ago) her ex decided that we were _cohabitating_ and he refused to pay her another cent in alimony which he expressed both informally and formally through his attorney which is the same one that handled his side of their _out of court_ divorce. About 8 months ago she retained the same attorney who handled her side of the arbitration a few years back to go after her ex for the unpaid alimony. COHABITATION is one of the few terms listed in the official divorce agreement where her ex husband would no longer have to pay alimony. From all my fiancé and I can gather "cohabitate" means LIVING TOGETHER. We have never lived together and we rarely even get the chance to sleep together (maybe twp dozen times in two years) because she has full custody of her teenage children. On the rare occasion that her kids are out of town (with their Dad usually) my fiancé and I can sleep together at either her or my residence. The document states absolutely nothing about _getting engaged_ or _sharing intimate relations in one another_s separate abodes".

I was served a subpoena (via cell phone - County Sheriffs office) by my fiancés ex husbands attorney yesterday to attend the deposition this week. My fiancé had her pre-depo preparation meeting and was told by her attorney that it did not seem as though her ex had a case since we are not living together. However, we have been sharing a cell phone account (she added a phone to her account for me and we talk free) for over a year. I have been paying her 35.00 a month (pre paid every 6 months by personal check) for that addition to her account. That is the only shared expense that could possibly make us appear as if we have been _cohabitating_. Her attorney told her that this shared expense _probably_ would not hurt her case. Is anyone here aware if splitting a daily used service like a cell phone account _could be_ damning in the sense of disproving a cohabitation claim in an alimony case? We are not cohabitaing and i would think that having to communicate via phone all the time because we can not actually be together would be a plus not a minus in proving that we are not cohabitating . . .

Thanks In Advance folks. )

I believe getting engaged is a prelude to marriage. If you cannot actually be together now, how will that change after the marriage, or do you plan to use the non-cohabitation defense after the wedding and continue to milk the ex-husband?

As an alimony payor I can assure you that if my money were paying for your fling, you would need to watch your back.

[himbald]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

I believe getting engaged is a prelude to marriage. If you cannot actually be together now, how will that change after the marriage, or do you plan to use the non-cohabitation defense after the wedding and continue to milk the ex-husband?

As an alimony payor I can assure you that if my money were paying for your fling, you would need to watch your back.

There is no "fling". Like my fiancés ex you seem to be very bitter and prone to defensiveness on the subject . . . However, if you were 'milked" and taken advantage of I can imagine holding a similar negative attitude myself.
She and I met 2 years after their divorce was complete, ironically HE was engaged at the time to a woman who he was probably fooling around with while still married. She and I are trying to do what is best for her teenage kids and provide as much of an advantage for them as possible. She and I each make around 20 bucks an hour in our full time jobs. Her ex has told his kids that he makes over a quarter million a year. He also recently told them that he will not contribute to their college educations if he has to pay alimony too (I'm not sure the amount but I think he is only supposed to pay her around 1,800 a month). She plans on winning the back alimony and getting it invested in a fund(s) to help with the kids in the event that their dad continues to be a complete self-serving ass.
Once we are married (some time this year once her 14 year old seems a little better adjusted to the idea) the ex of course will no longer pay alimony as per their contract. He will still apparently be required to pay child support for both of his children until they are 18 I believe.
We are not trying to screw anyone and are not materialistic people anyway . . . or we would be in higher paying careers probably ; )

As far as "watching my back" - the ex still must consider his ex wife his property or something because he apparently is very angry with me. He has started collecting pistols and goes religiously to the range to practice. I joke with my fiancé and her family that she is going to be in white at the wedding and I am going to be in Kevlar. )

[Zigner]

Instead of concentrating on what might prove cohabitation, you need to concentrate on what would disprove cohabitation. A rental agreement/lease for your own place would be a good start. Utility bills, car registration, insurance documents...all of these things will help to prove that you are NOT "living together".

[Silverplum]

Originally Posted by himbald

He also recently told them that he will not contribute to their college educations if he has to pay alimony too (I'm not sure the amount but I think he is only supposed to pay her around 1,800 a month). She plans on winning the back alimony and getting it invested in a fund(s) to help with the kids in the event that their dad continues to be a complete self-serving ass.

Does their divorce decree require him to pay for college??
Does some law of which I am unaware require parents to send kids to college?

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by himbald

There is no "fling". Like my fiancés ex you seem to be very bitter and prone to defensiveness on the subject . . .

I'll be less bitter when someone gives me a free ride for a change.

However, if you were 'milked" and taken advantage of I can imagine holding a similar negative attitude myself.
She and I met 2 years after their divorce was complete, ironically HE was engaged at the time to a woman who he was probably fooling around with while still married.

So what?

She and I are trying to do what is best for her teenage kids and provide as much of an advantage for them as possible. She and I each make around 20 bucks an hour in our full time jobs.

Some kids are not so lucky.

Her ex has told his kids that he makes over a quarter million a year.

Hearsay and irrelevant.

He also recently told them that he will not contribute to their college educations if he has to pay alimony too (I'm not sure the amount but I think he is only supposed to pay her around 1,800 a month).

They should pay for their own college.

She plans on winning the back alimony and getting it invested in a fund(s) to help with the kids in the event that their dad continues to be a complete self-serving ass.

They are divorced and she continues to feel like she can tell him what to do with his money?

Once we are married (some time this year once her 14 year old seems a little better adjusted to the idea) the ex of course will no longer pay alimony as per their contract. He will still apparently be required to pay child support for both of his children until they are 18 I believe.
We are not trying to screw anyone and are not materialistic people anyway . . . or we would be in higher paying careers probably ; )

As far as "watching my back" - the ex still must consider his ex wife his property

I don't believe that is the case at all. He works hard for his money and doesn't like being told what to do with it.

or something because he apparently is very angry with me. He has started collecting pistols and goes religiously to the range to practice.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

I joke with my fiancé and her family that she is going to be in white at the wedding and I am going to be in Kevlar. )

The sooner she gets married and stops the game playing, the better for both of you.

[himbald]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

The sooner she gets married and stops the game playing, the better for both of you.

wow. Whatever your ex did to you must have been incredibly egregious for you to be in your apparent state. There is no "game playing" on either of our parts. He claims we are cohabitating which we are not. We barely get to see each other twice a week. He was told by all parties that we are not living together (including their children who live fulltime with their mother so they would know), yet HE plays the game of forcing her hand. The logical, and I would think “standard” response to what her ex is trying to do would be to pursue the course she is committed to and take him to court. They have a binding legal contract that he is trying to weasel out of in a irrational seemingly unthinking and baseless manor. Most importantly he apparently wants to involve his children to the point of severely magnifying their angst. It is already tough enough for them to see their mom with someone other than their dad. We are trying to be as sensative as possible within the realm of reason. He seems to care about his kids yet he can not understand that he has just about completely lost one and the other is soon to follow if he can't put aside his own twisted agenda and behave like an adult and a man.

Along the lines of behaving like a man - That "knife to a gunfight" comment is curious for a law professional. Are you suggested that I holster up too? I would never consider for a second carrying around (or even owning) a gun. If the guy is sick and deranged enough to shoot the man marrying his ex-wife (who he wouldn't give the time of day to when they were married and likely cheated on) then that's his choice. I'm not going to get paranoid and insecure enough to ever drop to his level. He's smart enough to refrain from murder . . . if he's not then he spends the rest of his days with much bigger tougher more deranged individuals in confined spaces. There he would forgo even the most minute chance of receiving any love, respect or even attention from his kids. The only attention he would be getting would be from his prison mates.
Much like yourself, the sooner he can keep the past from ruining the present (and future) the better for him.

[Silverplum]

Are there any more LEGAL questions? This is not an emotional support site.

[himbald]

Originally Posted by Silverplum

Are there any more LEGAL questions? This is not an emotional support site.

. . . yet it doesn’t seem to be a problem here for Bali Hai to post incredibly biased purely emotional based provocative replies?

apparently I'm done here . . .

thanks to those who have tried to give your support and have not just used a help message board to vent personal issues

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by himbald

. . . yet it doesn’t seem to be a problem here for Bali Hai to post incredibly biased purely emotional based provocative replies?

apparently I'm done here . . .

thanks to those who have tried to give your support and have not just used a help message board to vent personal issues

You have to forgive/ignor Bali...he is incredibly bitter over his situation and that directly reflects in his responses to others.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

You have to forgive/ignor Bali...he is incredibly bitter over his situation and that directly reflects in his responses to others.

When people come here and scheme (seek legal maneuvers) to beat someone out of their hard earned money, they deserve a real world response.

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

When people come here and scheme (seek legal maneuvers) to beat someone out of their hard earned money, they deserve a real world response.

No, they deserve a legal response since this is a legal forum.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

No, they deserve a legal response since this is a legal forum.

Yes, that too.