NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only

  • 1.  Which cohabitation law applies? Old or new?

    Posted 01-23-2019 12:48 PM
    Parties divorced in 2002 - permanent alimony. Wife starts cohabitating in 2017.

    Under the old law, if economic ties under Gayet could be shown, it wasn't uncommon for alimony to be reduced, not terminated, especially as a settlement tool, when there was cohabitation.
    The new statute speaks of alimony being "suspended or terminated" if there's cohabitation (and, I assume Gayet ties are shown).

    I know the issue of which law to apply has arisen as to retirement, but I'm not aware of it having arisen as to cohabitation where the JOD predates the statute and the cohabitation is post-2015. Is there any?

    Thanks,

    <x-sigsep></x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223



  • 2.  RE: Which cohabitation law applies? Old or new?

    Posted 01-23-2019 02:18 PM
    What does the agreement say about cohabitation?

    Jeralyn Lawrence | Attorney at Law
    Treasurer, New Jersey State Bar Association
    Past Chair of the Family Law Section of the NJSBA
    Second Vice-President, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

    776 Mountain Boulevard, Suite 202
    Watchung, NJ 07069
    D: 908-279-0090 | T: 908-645-1000 | F: 908-645-1001
    www.lawlawfirm.com
    Pursuant to Treasury Regulations, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication, unless otherwise stated, is not intended and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties.

    Notice: Unless explicitly and conspicuously designated as 'E-Contract Intended', this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

    Notice: This message and any attached file is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this e-mail message should be construed as a legal opinion. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the original message. Thank you.
     



    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Which cohabitation law applies? Old or new?

    Posted 01-23-2019 02:43 PM
    It's silent on cohabitation.

    I've been pointed toward

    Spangenberg v. Kolakowski and am reading it now. It looks like it (and the cases citing it) address the issue, but if you know of a "quick answer" or better case, please let me know.

    Thanks,


    <x-sigsep></x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223




    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Which cohabitation law applies? Old or new?

    Posted 01-23-2019 02:56 PM
    David et Als

    Take a look at the attached (unpublished) App Div cases, that should prove helpful.

    I represent the ex-wife in Kloehn vs Kloehn, a pending Morris County co-hab [long term dating only case with no comon residence or comingling of finances]  case that will most likely make its way to the Supreme Court


    Very truly yours,


    John D. Murray
    Murray & Murray
    Attorneys at Law
    111 Canfield Avenue
    Bldg B-15
    Randolph, New Jersey  07869



    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Which cohabitation law applies? Old or new?

    Posted 01-27-2019 01:24 AM
    John -
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>Thank you for the cases.
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>I didn't see Kloehn, so I assume it's still in the trial court or hasn't been decided by the App Div.
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>The one that is jaw-dropping is Leonard: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6546904771192028746
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>"The judge found the parties negotiated their agreement, thus providing defendant the opportunity to have added cohabitation to the list of reasons for termination of alimony... The judge found both parties bound by the agreement they negotiated, that there was no provision in that agreement to terminate alimony based on cohabitation, and whether plaintiff was cohabiting now or even as early as 2013 was immaterial as there is nothing in the MSA to deter her from doing so."  What? If an agreement is silent as to cohabitation, it's not a basis to review alimony?
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>The opinion notes "Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court ... improperly determined that the law requires cohabitation language in order to review cohabitation as a change in circumstances." Uh, yes.
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>And the panel applied R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E) and held "our review of the record convinces us that none of those arguments is of sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion." What?
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>I hope they took it up. The Supreme Court would summarily reverse (I had them do that once on a really bad appellate decision -- https://www.dpdlaw.com/appeals.htm#Kummarapurugu ... coincidentally with one of the same Appellate judges who decided this one). If they haven't I hope they'd do so now, asking the SCT to relax the filing time for review of an appellate decision.
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>Someone asked at the symposium why it is the only certain appeals are published. Decisions like this are why. Wow. How disappointing.


    <x-sigsep></x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223




    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Which cohabitation law applies? Old or new?

    Posted 01-23-2019 02:54 PM
    Take a look at- Quinn v. Quinn, 225 N.J. 34 (2016) and Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999)

    ------------------------------
    Valerie Hemhauser Esq
    Red Bank NJ
    (732)842-9993
    ------------------------------

    Original Message