Articles
Articles in the ‘Cohabitation and Partition’ Category
Post Judgment CoHabitation Leads to Alimony Reduction
Post judgment cohabitation leads to downward modification of ex-husband’s alimony obligation to his former wife. Clayton v. Clayton, January 19, 2012
Cohabitation and Alimony Reduction
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination that alimony should have been reduced due to cohabitation and the economic benefit derived by the supported spouse, hwoever it was error for the judge to do so arbitrarily without current Case Information Statements from each party and make specific findings as required by Konzelman and Ozolins. Azzari v. Azzari, New Jersey App. Div., April 28, 2011
Financial Interdependence and Cohabitation Sufficient to Terminate Alimony
This case reinforces the two-prong Gayet analysis when seeking to terminate alimony. Here the ex-wife stipulated to cohabitating with an unrelated male partner. The ex-husband presented compelling proofs demonstrating “economic interdependence” effectively terminating his alimony obligation even without a plenary hearing. Proctor, n/k/a Pizzutti v. Proctor, New Jersey App. Div., March 31, 2011
Evidence of Cohabitation Warrants Hearing
Former husband made a sufficient showing that his former wife was co-habitating with another man and the parties financial circumstances dramatically changed warranting a post judgment plenary hearing modifying his alimony obligation. Wonderlin v. Wonderlin, Jr., New Jersey App. Div., February 3, 2011
Alimony and Cohabitation
This case illustrates the importance utilizing the services of a private investigator as a tool demonstrating a prima facie showing of cohabitation triggering the need for a plenary hearing to determine whether alimony should be reduced or terminated. Gallagher v. Gallagher, New Jersey App. Div., November 10, 2010
Cohabitation and Partition
In this partition action the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination to directing defendant to transfer all right, title and interest in one residence to plaintiff and granted plaintiff an equitable interest in a second residence titled solely to him. The parties lived together for many years and never married. The trial court applied equitable distribution
