Cohabitation Can Be Expensive

Robert Thym had a good thing going. He was looking at $4,000 per month in alimony over twenty years. But nine years after the divorce his former wife got a court to terminate the payments because Thym moved in with his girlfriend. (Specifically, he was spending six nights a week with her and eating ten meals a week at her house.)

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that the $4,000 per month was alimony in futuro rather than a division of marital property. Why did this matter? Because under the Cohabitation Statute, alimony in futuro may be suspended if a spouse lives with a third person. Proof of cohabitation gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the alimony recipient does not need the amount of alimony awarded.

The Court of Appeals did reverse the trial court's decision to terminate the alimony payments -- the statute says payments may be suspended, not terminated. (Any bets on how long it will take Mr. Thym to move back into his condo?)

Unanswered Question: The Cohabitation Statute allows a court to suspend "all or part" of the alimony obligation. Did the evidence really support a suspension of all payments? Are six nights and ten meals a week a substitute for $4,000 a month? What kind of food were these people eating?