What is the definition of cohabitation? Mississippi

[Zigner]

I find it completely mind boggling, although not surprising, that when a man comes here asking about cohabitation regarding a women shacking up and ending alimony, the advice is completely different from the same people when a woman is paying alimony to the man and trying prove cohabitation to terminate it.

And now even citing a 19th century criminal statute to justify their bias. Unbelievable!

Let me sum it up:

OP wants to know if the situation could be considered cohabitation. OP hopes it isn't because there are penalties if it is. OP is told that it would appear that the situation IS one of cohabitation. The reference to the statute was given as a guide towards how the state in question may define cohabitation.

Perhaps you misunderstood what the OP was being told? The answer I gave is not related to gender at all.

 

[Bali Hai]

Let me sum it up:

OP wants to know if the situation could be considered cohabitation. OP hopes it isn't because there are penalties if it is. OP is told that it would appear that the situation IS one of cohabitation. The reference to the statute was given as a guide towards how the state in question may define cohabitation.

Perhaps you misunderstood what the OP was being told? The answer I gave is not related to gender at all.

"My point is, his ex wife is trying to come after him for the $45,000 he is supposed to pay her should he "move a woman in" into his home".

OP has not moved into the home, has no mutual financial arrangement and therefore is not even close to cohabitation.

In any event you can see the vastly different opinions of judges on this subject. It all boils down the whether you're pro-woman or pro-man. These eggheads can present a good argument either way.

http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/mississippi/supreme-court/Conv4236.pdf?ts=1323899930

 

[Zigner]

"My point is, his ex wife is trying to come after him for the $45,000 he is supposed to pay her should he "move a woman in" into his home".

OP has not moved into the home, has no mutual financial arrangement and therefore is not even close to cohabitation.

It can be argued that the OP HAS "moved in to" the home. The pregnancy of the OP (once it's determined to be the other party's baby) may well be enough to tip the scale. That can show financial obligations.

I don't think this is a man vs woman bias...not on my part at least

 

[Bali Hai]

It can be argued that the OP HAS "moved in to" the home. The pregnancy of the OP (once it's determined to be the other party's baby) may well be enough to tip the scale. That can show financial obligations.I don't think this is a man vs woman bias...not on my part at least

Does her so-called moving into his home mean that she has "moved out" of her home?

A one night stand can produce financial obligations.

 

[justalayman]

I always thought that cohabitation meant two people having a sexual relationship acting as husband and wife,

so two friends that don't pork each other cannot cohabitate?

sharing house expenses and other miscellaneous stuff.

Hmm, my wife doesn't work (for financial gain outside of the home) so that means she doesn't technically pay for anything. Does that mean we aren't cohabitating?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

make this real simple: when you and BF are out and about and you say; it's time to head home; just where do each of you go?

Since you stay at his house a majority of the time, yes, you are cohabitating regardless of how you answer any of the reasons you posed.

and I have my own sink

Hell, you've laid possessory claim to a sink.


but the important part is; how will the judge see it. That is all that really matters because apparently once a judge sees it as cohabitation, BANG, he owes the ex some money. I suspect a judge isn't going to want to play your games and just call a spade a spade and tell BF to pay up.

 

[Zigner]

Does her so-called moving into his home mean that she has "moved out" of her home?

A one night stand can produce financial obligations.

We're talking about the totality of the circumstances here Bali...please stay focused.

 

[Bali Hai]

so two friends that don't pork each other cannot cohabitate?


Hmm, my wife doesn't work (for financial gain outside of the home) so that means she doesn't technically pay for anything. Does that mean we aren't cohabitating?



make this real simple: when you and BF are out and about and you say; it's time to head home; just where do each of you go?

Since you stay at his house a majority of the time, yes, you are cohabitating regardless of how you answer any of the reasons you posed.


Hell, you've laid possessory claim to a sink.


but the important part is; how will the judge see it. That is all that really matters because apparently once a judge sees it as cohabitation, BANG, he owes the ex some money. I suspect a judge isn't going to want to play your games and just call a spade a spade and tell BF to pay up.

One would expect a judge to do this in ALL cohabitation circumstances, but, we know that just isn't the case. Women receiving money "play games" all the time and still the courts go to extremes not to see it as cohabitation, and then BANG, ex-husband pays up or goes to jail.

 

[Zigner]

One would expect a judge to do this in ALL cohabitation circumstances, but, we know that just isn't the case. Women receiving money "play games" all the time and still the courts go to extremes not to see it as cohabitation, and then BANG, ex-husband pays up or goes to jail.

Again, your bias is shining brightly. Nobody can accuse you of not being consistent.

 

[Bali Hai]

We're talking about the totality of the circumstances here Bali...please stay focused.

Oh, I'm focused alright. Focused on how in the past the same people saying that this is cohabitation questioned the man paying alimony and wanting to terminate it:

1) Does she receive mail there?
2) Does she have a separate residence?
3) Does she file income taxes together with him?
4) Do they have a joint bank account?
5) Does she stay there all the time?

And on and on and on!

Focused on just how these same people jumped to the conclusion that this is cohabitation without asking one damn question!

 

[Bali Hai]

Again, your bias is shining brightly. Nobody can accuse you of not being consistent.

Why thank you very much Zigner.

 

[ecmst12]

It has to do with money, same thing...

No, it's not. In fact I find it odd and ridiculous, if what OP says is true and BF has to pay some absurd amount of money to his ex, having nothing to do with alimony or support, just because he allows someone to move into his home way after his divorce was final. Does he have to pay her off if he gets remarried, too? What about if HE moves into HER place? Now, since OP is a 3rd party, she may not really know what's in his divorce paperwork. BF may even be lying to her about it. But messing around does NOT cohabitation make, and that has nothing to do with gender. OP is not using his address as her residence, does not receive mail there or use it for employment or other legal purposes, is not on any of the bills there; just because she stays there frequently does not make it her residence. It doesn't sound like a sham to me, just sounds like their relationship has not moved to that level yet (despite the irresponsible (lack of) use of birth control)

It disturbs me to agree with Bali on this, just for the record.

 

[Zigner]

Oh, I'm focused alright. Focused on how in the past the same people saying that this is cohabitation questioned the man paying alimony and wanting to terminate it:

1) Does she receive mail there?
2) Does she have a separate residence?
3) Does she file income taxes together with him?
4) Do they have a joint bank account?
5) Does she stay there all the time?

And on and on and on!

Focused on just how these same people jumped to the conclusion that this is cohabitation without asking one damn question!

Each state is different...each of the above can go to proving cohabitation. However, there was enough information given in the OP that these questions were unneeded to form an opinion.

 

[Bali Hai]

No, it's not. In fact I find it odd and ridiculous, if what OP says is true and BF has to pay some absurd amount of money to his ex, having nothing to do with alimony or support, just because he allows someone to move into his home way after his divorce was final. Does he have to pay her off if he gets remarried, too? What about if HE moves into HER place? Now, since OP is a 3rd party, she may not really know what's in his divorce paperwork. BF may even be lying to her about it. But messing around does NOT cohabitation make, and that has nothing to do with gender. OP is not using his address as her residence, does not receive mail there or use it for employment or other legal purposes, is not on any of the bills there; just because she stays there frequently does not make it her residence. It doesn't sound like a sham to me, just sounds like their relationship has not moved to that level yet (despite the irresponsible (lack of) use of birth control)

It disturbs me to agree with Bali on this, just for the record.

Just for the record, it was a matter of time.

My guess is that others have been disturbed about the same thing all along but won't admit it.

 

[Zigner]

Folks, we are working with a 3rd party. We have no idea of what the OP's BF is actually required to do. I agree that it sounds silly, but that simply makes me believe that the OP doesn't have the real scoop, not that the system is skewed and the guy is getting screwed...

 

[Bali Hai]

Folks, we are working with a 3rd party. We have no idea of what the OP's BF is actually required to do. I agree that it sounds silly, but that simply makes me believe that the OP doesn't have the real scoop, not that the system is skewed and the guy is getting screwed...

I hope the guy isn't getting screwed. That would be a good start.