California Family Law Attorney
3 entries found. Viewing page 1 of 1.  
September 16, 2010
  My Wife is Living With a Male Renter - Does This Affect My SUPPORT OBLIGATION?
Posted By Thurman Arnold

Q. If my wife is living with a male renter, and I suspect they are boyfriend-girlfriend, does this affect the amount of spousal and child support that I have to pay?


A. The supported party's cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex gives rise to a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof of decreased need for spousal support. FC § 4323(a)(1). It has no impact on child support obligations, however.

FC § 4323 states:

(a)(1) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of proof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. Upon a determination that circumstances have changed, the court may modify or terminate the spousal support as provided for in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3650) of Part 1.

(2) Holding oneself out to be the husband or wife of the person with whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitute cohabitation as the term is used in this subdivision.

(b) The income of a supporting spouse's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or modifying spousal support.

(c) Nothing in this section precludes later modification or termination of spousal support on proof of change of circumstances.

As stated in Marriage of Schroeder (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1154, 238 Cal.Rptr. 12,

"the policy underlying section 4323 is a legislative acknowledgment that cohabitation may reduce the needs of the supported spouse. The arrangement between Wife and Lara elevates form over substance. By receiving reimbursement by way of 'gifts,' Wife's cash needs for support purposes appear unchanged despite cohabitation. While cohabitants are at liberty to deal with each other as they see fit, their 'contract must be fair and reasonable with respect to the rights of [the] supporting spouse.' The trial court here failed to recognize that the allocation of expenses between Wife and Lara undermines the statute and acts to Husband's detriment.

The record strongly indicates Wife's needs have decreased as a result of cohabitation. We remand to the trial court for a factual determination of the extent of her reduced need, with due consideration for the value of the benefits received by her, as well as the value of the benefits conferred upon Lara."

Schroeder involved a post judgment modification of a permanent support order by the payor, not an initial pendente lite request by the supported spouse. The evidence was the former wife had been living with a man of the opposite sex for 18 months, that he didn't pay rent, that he was regularly employed, that he did not contribute to utilities, but that he did contribute to joint vacations. The appellate court found those facts to strongly suggest a cohabitation. Even then, the issue on remand was not a termination of the support obligation but a determination of the value of the benefits incurred by the former wife which might reduce her needs.

Cohabitation has been loosely defined as not necessarily holding oneself out to be Husband and Wife, but is more than a simple roommate or "boarding arrangement." There must be a showing of a sexual, romantic or at least a "homemaker-companion" relationship. Marriage of Regnery (1989) 214 CA3d 1367, 263 CR 243.

Marriage of Geraci (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1278 reversed a trial court failure to consider the effect of an admitted cohabitation lasting several years with the following comments:

The court's judgment also does not take into consideration the evidence Jane had been cohabiting since the parties separated in 2000, despite John's requests for findings on the issue. Section 4323 states "there is a rebuttal presumption, affecting the burden of proof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. . . . "Cohabitation may reduce the need for spousal support because 'sharing a household gives rise to economies of scale. [Citation.] Also, more importantly, the cohabitant's income may be available to the obligee spouse.' (In re Marriage of Schroeder (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1159 [238 Cal.Rptr. 12].)"[32] "[T]he Legislature created the presumption . . . based on thinking that cohabitation . . . creates a change of circumstance so tied in with the payment of spousal support as to be significant enough by itself to require a re-examination of whether such need for support continues in such a way that it still should be charged to the prior spouse." [Italics added].

* * *

At trial, however, Jane testified she had no intention of marrying him. Jane's father, by contrast, testified he hoped they would soon marry. The evidence showed her boyfriend supplied Jane with housing, with a leased car and a credit card in her name for her use. Jane testified she was supposed to pay him back for all her expenditures, including the equivalent of $1,000 a month for rent, whenever she became financially able to do so. She testified she then owed her boyfriend more than $30,000 in back rent, credit card and other debt. According to Jane's evidence, she contributed to the household by providing domestic services.

The foregoing is substantial and material evidence Jane was cohabiting within the meaning of section 4323 and might have a lesser need for spousal support than the court awarded had it considered this circumstance. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate the court fairly considered Jane's cohabitation when determining the type and amount of spousal support to award her.

In Marriage of Bower (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 893,117 Cal.Rptr.2d 520 there were two permanent support modification hearings filed by the payor husband, one held in 1997 and the second in 2000. At the 1997 hearing the evidence was that the Wife was sharing expenses and living full time at a residence with a man described as a 'roommate.' The Bower court noted that the Husband had been wise in not appealing that order. However, by the time of the second application over three years later in 2000, there was evidence that she was sharing at least one bank account with her "roommate," and she even stipulated she was cohabiting.

Under those circumstances, together with evidence of an increased income from her employment, it was not an abuse of discretion to reduce the Wife's spousal support and then terminate it at the end of one year.

Bower and those cases cited herein regarding cohabitation are dealing with modifications of Permanent Spousal Support orders. They all are based upon the "two can live more cheaply than one" theory or upon actual expenses of the supported party being regularly paid for by the cohabitant beyond loans and gifts. There is no reported case that upholds a trial court refusal to provide spousal support at the temporary hearing stage. However, I suspect most courts will apply the presumption there as well.

The philosophy underlying the cohabitation statute is that parties who share a household and live in a meretricious relationship should not benefit by continuing to receive spousal support without consideration of the reduced need this sharing produces.

Finding cohabitation just allows for the aid of a statutory presumption to assist in the presentation of factual evidence. The effect is the same without the presumption even for mere roommates, as those contributions to the obligee's living expenses may also support a factual finding sufficient to modify spousal support since rent is income.

Nonetheless, cohabitation is offensive to some judges and they be willing to terminate the spousal support obligation instead of merely reducing it.

Note that once you prove a cohabitation the burden of proof shifts to the supported party to show that they still need support. That is their problem, not yours. Nonetheless, if you can show a substantial reduction or the end of any need for alimony you would be well advised to present that evidence.

Finally, you are not entitled to know the income of the other party as new-mate income cannot be considered by the Courts.

For domestic partnerships, even though the statute speaks in terms of opposite sex couples it is highly unlikely that a trial court would not reduce or terminate partner support with a same-sex couple where male former partner is cohabiting with a male and so on. Since 2005 the California Family Code is to be interpreted as applying equally to same sex couples who are in a legally recognized relationship.

If a gay man (as opposed to bi-sexual male) is now living with a female should the opposite sex presumption be applied? The answer would seem to turn on whether the relationship is romantic and/or intimate and not on the identity of genders. Similarly, if a former wife is now living with a female roommate and it can be established that relationship is intimate, then the same reasoning as in the above cases will likely apply. We await appellate court pronouncements on these interesting questions.

[Note, four years later, in July, 2014, Family Code section 4323 was amended to strike the "person of the opposite sex" language and replacing with the phrase "nonmarital partners." - TWA]

Thurman W. Arnold III
September 16, 2010

Continue reading "My Wife is Living With a Male Renter - Does This Affect My SUPPORT OBLIGATION?" »

Permalink 
 
May 14, 2010
  What do I do about SPOUSAL SUPPORT if my ex-spouse is COHABITING with another man?
Posted By Thurman Arnold

Q. My ex-wife is living with another guy. I am paying her spousal support per our settlement agreement. I have remarried, and this really upsets my present wife. Besides, I don't think it is fair. What can I do?


A. Lawyers who represent "payor" spouses often attempt to include a provision in the parties' Marital Settlement Settlement Agreement or divorce judgment that says future cohabitation between the support recipient and another person will terminate spousal support. If your agreement so provides, you may have leverage to modify or terminate spousal support.

But even if your agreement or the Judgment is silent about cohabitation, Family Code section 4323 creates a rebuttable presumption the she has a decreased need for alimony once you convince the Court that your ex-wife is living with a person of the opposite sex, who is sharing income or contributing to her expenses. That section tracks the public policy of this state that you should not be underwriting your ex-wife's new household where her expenses are being covered by a romantic partner.

The section 4323 presumption isn't triggered solely because a man is living in your ex-wifes home. It does not cover persons who are simply opposite sex roommates, which as you would expect is the common explanation or story. An ex partner may take on a roommate for purely financial reasons - that is not by itself cohabitation. If you believe there is more to the relationship, look to establishing the length of their joint living circumstances, and utilize discovery to try establish whether they have joint credit cards or household accounts. If this is a new situation that you've just learned about, consider being patient and don't file for relief too early; let your ex's situation mature. If she is indeed in a romantic relationship, it will be increasingly unlikely that she will move him out in response to your motion.

Don't expect to learn what that person earns. California law is pretty clear that you won't ever get that information. Look instead to what that person contributes to joint expenses, or to your ex-wife's expenses.

I do not recommend that you hire a private investigator to peek into their bedroom to establish that they have an intimate relationship. But what course you take may depend upon how she characterizes the relationship. For instance, if she claims there is not an intimate relation, then proving there is may be useful to you.

Understand that even if your ex spouse is receiving financial benefits from her live-in, that does not guarantee that the Court will terminate as opposed to reduce her support - the statutory presumption is for a reduced need. If the marital standard of living that the two of you enjoyed was high, and she is shacking up with a tennis coach, the Court might choose to reduce her support rather than cutting her off entirely because his contributions may be limited in light of the marital standard. Don't think that just because you feel violated that the Court will view it in the same way, although it might.

Up through 2014, section 4323 only spoke in terms of consequences for living with a person of the opposite sex. However, if an ex-spouse was living in a romantic relationship with a same sex partner, it seemed hard to imagine that a judge would not act to reduce your alimony obligation. We will never know how an appellate court might have answered the question, because effective January 1, 2014, section Amended Family Code section 4323 treats same-sex cohabiting the same as if it were opposite-sex cohabitation.

File a motion to terminate the support, but ask in the alternative that it be reduced. Even if you are not successful terminating support the first time, if they continue to live together you will have an improved chance on your next application.

Want to read more about the impact of cohabitation on support obligations?

Need to know how to terminate your spousal support orders?

And please give us a FB like if you appreciate our efforts!

Thurman W. Arnold, III


Continue reading "What do I do about SPOUSAL SUPPORT if my ex-spouse is COHABITING with another man?" »

Permalink 
 
April 23, 2010
  Do I need a COHABITATION AGREEMENT?
Posted By Thurman Arnold

Q. I am thinking about asking my girlfriend to move in with me. Should I be considering a Cohabitation Agreement and what would it say?


A lawyer's job is to give conservative advice that protects clients from both seen and unseen potential legal consequences relative to the circumstances that are unique to these client's lives. Family law attorneys are reminded every day that most nonlawyers never consider that their new (or old) relationship might one day breakup or dissolve and if so what the fallout might be in terms of property, debts, or even support obligations. People are particularly vulnerable for setting themselves up for future legal difficulties in the early stages of relationship. This is the time when they are least likely to seek family law legal advice but when they need it most.

I commonly encounter several sets of circumstances that justify executing cohabitation agreements, and which affect how they are written and what provisions to include:


Protecting Assets and Income of One Person

Where one partner brings into the relationship assets, debts, or an income stream which is proportionately greater than that of the other partner, the partner in the financially superior position may reasonably be concerned about protecting what they have. I call these "limiting agreements" because their aim is primarily to ensure that the other partner acquires no interest (or only specified interests) in property which is already owned or that is acquired during the relationship - typically through the use of joint bank accounts, joint borrowing, inheritances, or by just plain inadvertence.

Often one partner in these situations has a near zero net worth. The economic reality in our culture is that this is usually the woman, who may also be a custodial parent of a minor child and under economic pressure. The fact is that our culture values the contributions of partners quite differently depending upon whether that contribution is in the form of money, property, or services. People joke about being called 'domestic engineers' and we may talk about women not being employed 'outside the home.' Families are not merely emotional and social units, they are also economic units. Coupling enables people to specialize between themselves so that one person can devote a greater percentage of attention to the job marketplace, for instance, while the other can invest their energies in establishing and maintaining a stable and supportive home environment.

We act as though money is the more valuable contribution to relationship when this may not at all be true. Any sociologist will tell you that if we were to count the hours that most women spend taking care of the home (and especially children), which frees the man up to work for money, and then value this time at a reasonable rate, the economic worth of the non cash contributions by domestic engineers often exceeds the value of the wages earned outside the home by the working partner in most low to middle-high income partnerships (illustrated if you consider what it would cost some outside worker to perform these tasks).

Whether the monetarily disadvantaged partner is a man or a woman, this person's interest lies in avoiding limiting agreements or in having them crafted so that some level of financial protection exists. There are compromise solutions that can be achieved which afford these persons protections they would not otherwise have, which is good reason for obtaining guidance from a qualified attorney.

If partner A earns $50,000/year and partner B works part-time outside the home or not at all, such that his efforts at home help to free up partner A's time so she can devote her attention to competing successfully within the job marketplace, the partners' respective contributions in terms of hours may be the same. If it is similar on a fairness scale, then is it really appropriate that partner A should be solely entitled to a $10,000 savings account she accumulated during the cohabitation when partner B worked only in the home and so did not have access to the dollar wages that could be tucked away?

You don't need to agree with this philosophical analysis, although it is the modern view, but perhaps these examples make it clear that cohabitation agreements include moral, ethical, and fairness considerations which deserve attention. These can be negotiated and compromised in an even handed manner that is respectful of and sensitive to the dignity and relative contribution of both cohabitants. Truly, if two partners enter a relationship where the underlying assumption is that only the partner who works for wages is bringing value into it, this is not an auspicious beginning.

Protecting Assets and Income of Both Parties

Many people who utilize cohabitation agreements have previously been married and divorced, and have ongoing responsibilities for children or aging parents. They cannot afford the economic consequences of another break up and they want the companionship and benefits of a committed relationship.

In many cases the partners may have substantially equal assets and liabilities, or their relative net worths may not be too disproportionate. Two-earner households are more common today than ever before.

In California persons who cohabit who are not married or who are not domestic partners have no rights or obligations between themselves under the Family Code, assuming they have no children together. Their rights or obligations, if any, are determined solely by contract - and if there is no written contract it becomes very difficult to determine what people intended at the time they acquired what they acquired or did what they did. All kinds of claims can be made about verbal promises, and verbal agreements are enforceable when a Judge believes they exist.

Unmarried partners who have not been protected by a written agreement have no right to claim an interest in the other partner's property accumulated during the relationship, and they have no inheritance or survivorship rights absent an existing will or trust. Common law marriage is not recognized in California, unless it was first established in another state which does recognize it.

There are very good reasons to carefully draft and execute cohabitation agreements beyond trying to exclude the other partner from making a claim if the cohabitation ceases. It may be helpful to create a template for how the relationship can be disentangled in an orderly and equitable manner once it ends; however, it can be very useful to have a roadmap about how certain activities should be handled even in an intact relationship. Knowing one's rights in advance and having a formula for confirming them is always a smart thing which can positively affect decision-making.


Creating Nonmarital Partnerships

Just as a cohabitation agreement can be designed to protect against creating unintended rights in the other partner, so too it can be positively used to create protections that would otherwise not exist under the law. These are generally called "pooling agreements" or "Marvin Agreements".

If you create a business partnership or joint venture you do it with the expectation of generating profits, including the coequal sharing of an increase in the value of the partnership and whatever money is spun off and distributed from the partnership. Some people wish to do the same thing with their nonmarital cohabitation partnerships.

Is it any more wise to enter into a nonmarital cohabitation without any form of agreement than it is to enter a business partnership on a handshake? In these times lawyers must shake our heads in dismay when people proudly tell us that their word is their bond and that they make their deals on a handshake. While such sentiment is admirable, it is not realistic.

A cohabitation agreement can be used to specify what property and assets becomes joint and under what circumstances, what the proportionate joint interests are, what to do with debt, and what property is to become or remain separate as to one partner alone. It can be used to protect the partners in the event of death as to property that may be jointly owned but not jointly titled. It can create a structure for valuing and dividing assets that avoids litigation and high legal fees, not to mention hostility and resentment, upon termination of the joint living arrangement.

It can also be used to create certain rights and obligations of support under specified settings.


Cohab Agreements Are Wise to Consider

Whether family attorneys counsel a particular client to utilize a cohabitation agreement, as with prenuptial or premarital agreements, often depends upon who has - or who over time is anticipated to have - the larger economic power and financial resources in the relationship.

The obvious situation is where the economically better off person wants the security of the protections. The common assumption is that the person with wealth should always insist upon a cohab agreement, and that view is probably correct - the agreement, however, can become something much larger and more creative than simple property waivers.

Ironically, people with some degree of economic advantage often don't avail themselves of a cohabitation agreement because they feel embarrassed, uneasy, or frightened to ask the other about it, on the belief the other partner may be offended. In my experience people are only offended when the agreement runs in one direction.

If a woman with zero assets and little income seeks advice about how to structure her economic relationship with the man or woman she is about to move in with, a cohabitation agreement may or may not be in her best interest depending upon the terms. It may come as a surprise, however, to learn that she will probably be far better off in all situations with one than without.

If one participant in a joint living arrangement is obsessed with acquiring and keeping all of the marbles, you are headed for trouble anyway. For me it is always best to admit that there is an elephant in the room. By placing these concerns on the table there is a huge potential freedom to address them in ways which are ignored when there is no agreement. People can be guided into thinking about consequences they otherwise block out of their minds. This can nurture a positive beginning, rather than a beginning by default with neither person is talking about a multitude of what-if's. It provides an opportunity to honor both persons, and is not at all mutually exclusive with reasonable legal protections.

People rarely seek marital counseling outside the church or education before marrying. Similarly they rarely give much thought to how to structure their lives when they undertake living together outside of marriage.

Cohabitation agreements provide an amazing opportunity to consciously and mindfully embark upon a new relationship.

If you intend to share a household with a romantic partner other than only temporarily, my recommendation is that you always consider entering into a cohabitation agreement. However, it is important that you locate counsel in your area who is not merely a traditional adversarial lawyer, because their resource toolbox for assisting you with all your issues tends to be relatively empty.

For more advice and recommendations before you cohabit, visit us here!

Thurman W. Arnold III
Continue reading "Do I need a COHABITATION AGREEMENT?" »

Permalink  | Comments()
 
3 entries found. Viewing page 1 of 1.