Konzelman v. Konzelman Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1999. 158 N.J. 185, 729 A.2d 7.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by HANDLER, J.
Fact: Kathleen and Lawrence Konzelman married for twenty-seven years and divorced. Their Property Settlement Agreement presented that Mr. Konzelman’s support and maintenance obligation of $700.00 per week would terminate if Mrs Konzelman undertake cohabitation with an unrelated adult male for a period of four continuous months. Mr. K hired a private investigator and found out that various activities of an “unrelated adult male” at Mrs. K’s home. In response to this, Mr.K terminated alimony payments and Mrs. K filed a Notice of Motion and accompanying certification denying cohabitation and demanding the resumption of alimony payments and the payment of arrearage. Concerning her action, Mr. K filed a cross motion, keep seeking to terminate support and maintenance. The trial court ordered in favor of Mrs. K. Mr. K appealed and Mrs. K filed a corss-appeal. The Appellate Division reversed.
Issue: Whether a property settlement agreement that authorized the termination of the husband’s support and maintenance payments in the event of the wife’s cohabitation with an unrelated partner is enforceable
Rule:
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-25.
Permanent alimony terminates automatically on remarriage.
Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 151, 456 A.2d 102 (1983).
The legal obligation of post-divorce alimony is derived from the antecedent marriage; a new marriage supplants that obligation.
The Court determined that cohabitation of the dependent spouse without more was not a changed circumstance that could justify the reduction or termination of alimony by the supporting spouse
Faherty, supra, 97 N.J. 99, 477 A.2d 1257
Agreements to terminate alimony on the condition of cohabitation must be voluntary and consensual, based on assurances that these undertakings are fully informed, knowingly assumed, and fair and equitable.
Application:
In enacting that basis or condition for discontinuing alimony, the Legislature articulated a public policy that the legal obligation of the supporting spouse is superseded and ends on the remarriage of the dependent spouse. The situation can be interpreted that the wife is already living with another man like husband and wife. Hence, remarriage justifies the termination of alimony without regard to the economic circumstances of the dependent spouse who has remarried. Therefore, termination of alimony seems valid. Also, both parties were aware of what was written in the agreement that Mr. K’s support and maintenance obligation will be terminated if Mrs. K undertake cohabitation with an unrelated adult male for a period of four continuous months and the trial court determined that Mr. K had established cohabitation. Even though the court claimed that the provision of the Agreement authorizing termination of alimony on cohabitation was invalid, there were mutual consent on the agreement. So the court should support the termination of alimony.
Conclusion:
Affirmed. The agreement between two parties is enforceable.