Attorney Marc A. Scaring Wins Alimony Termination Case!
During the divorce, the Husband and Wife entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) that obligated the Husband to pay alimony to the Wife until essentially Wife reached full retirement age. However, the MSA included grounds for early termination of alimony, including cohabitation. If the Wife cohabitated her alimony would be terminated. The MSA was executed and the Divorce Decree entered, and Husband dutifully paid his monthly alimony obligation for many years.
Wife then embarked upon a long-term relationship with her paramour that included spending every other weekend at each other’s separate residences for many years, going on trips together, spending considerable time with each other’s families to the point the paramour was considered by Wife’s family as a Bonus Dad and referring to each other as forever fiancés. Their relationship culminated in the building of what they considered their dream home, i.e., a duplex with one side for the Wife and one side for the paramour. The Wife and paramour believed that by using separate lots, deeds, and building contracts in the acquisition and construction of the duplex, and in living, or at least pretending to, primarily within their respective sides of the duplex, they would not be cohabitating and thus Wife would not lose her alimony. The Wife apparently consulted her attorney and was told these steps needed to be taken to avoid being found to be cohabitating with her paramour.
Cohabitation, for purposes of barring alimony, occurs when:
“two persons of the opposite sex reside together in the manner of husband and wife, mutually assuming those rights and duties usually attendant upon the marriage relationship. Cohabitation may be shown by evidence of financial, social, and sexual interdependence, by a sharing of the same residence, and by other means. . . . An occasional sexual liaison, however, does not constitute cohabitation. Miller v. Miller, 352 Pa. Super. 432, 508 A.2d 550, 554 (Pa.Super. 1986)”
Lobaugh v. Lobaugh, 2000 PA Super 159, ¶ 5, 753 A.2d 834, 836 (emphasis added).
From the Husband’s perspective, the building of the duplex was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and that Wife and her paramour had pushed the envelope too far and were now obviously cohabitating behind the façade of the duplex. The Husband contacted Attorney Marc A. Scaringi.
Attorney Scaring filed a Petition to Terminate Alimony on the grounds that Wife was in breach of contract by cohabitating while receiving alimony and breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing that is implied in every contract, including Marital Settlement Agreements. Wife filed an Answer, in which she claimed she was not cohabitating, and three counterclaims. Scaringi Law defeated all three counterclaims. And, after a six-day bench trial, the Court entered an order granting the Petition to Terminate Alimony, found that the Wife is cohabitating and terminated Husband’s duty to pay alimony. Attorney Scaringi and his client are very happy with the decision.
This case was complex. First, like all cohabitation cases, it is very fact specific. Second, the Wife and paramour went to great lengths and with the advice of counsel to try to arrange their lives to defeat a claim that they were cohabitating. Third it is a case of first impression. There is no other cohabitation case in Pennsylvania involving a duplex home.
If you have any questions about alimony or divorce, please do not hesitate to contact Scaringi Law at 717-657-7770.