Law Lessons from Adessa v. Adessa, App. Div. (A-2854-07T2; Decided May 29, 2009):

Picture by - Raphael Perez

A party seeking modification of alimony based on cohabitation must first establish a prima facie case before proceeding to discovery and a plenary hearing. Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157 (1980). Where a fair and equitable PSA provides for termination of alimony upon cohabitation, “the court need not delve into the economic needs of the dependent spouse.” Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185, 197 (1999). The supporting spouse need only show that the dependent spouse has entered into a new marriage-like relationship. Ibid.
A mere romantic, casual or social relationship is not sufficient to justify the enforcement of a settlement agreement provision terminating alimony. Such an agreement must be predicated on a relationship of cohabitation that can be shown to have stability, permanency and mutual interdependence. The Appellate Division has expressed that standard by defining cohabitation as a domestic relationship whereby two unmarried adults live as husband and wife. [] Cohabitation is not defined or measured solely or even essentially by “sex” or even gender, as implied by the dissent. [] The ordinary understanding of cohabitation is based on those factors that make the relationship close and enduring and requires more than a common residence, although that is an important factor. Cohabitation involves an intimate relationship in which the couple has undertaken duties and privileges that are commonly associated with marriage. These can include, but are not limited to, living together, intertwined finances such as joint bank accounts, sharing living expenses and household chores, and recognition of the relationship in the couple’s social and family circle.
[Id. at 202.]

[See related Blog Post, published in the NJ Family Legal Blog.]