|
10. Konzelman v. Konzelman
1. Fact
After twenty-seven years of marriage, Kathleen and Lawrence Konzelman divorced and greed to enter the divorce decree included a Property Settlement Agreement and alimony. However, Lawrence noticed that Kathleen established cohabitation with an unrelated adult male (Mr. Liput) relying on the reports of the investigators who hired by Lawrence. Kathleen filed a Notice of Motion denying cohabitation and Lawrence filed a cross-motion. The trial court ordered him to continue the payment. The court agreed that she had established cohabitation. However, termination of the support was invalid and it is reasonable to reduce the support because she was receiving some money from the cohabitant. Lawrence appealed and the Appellant Court reversed based on the reasoning that both parties freely entered a property settlement agreement and the new relationship is deemed marriage.
2. Issue
Whether a husband can terminate a spousal support when a wife cohabitates with an unrelated adult male.
3. Rules
1) Smith v. Smith, 72 N.J. 350, 360, 371 A.2d 1 (1977), Schlemm v. Schlemm, 31 N.J. 557, 581-82, 158 A.2d 508 (1960)
New Jersey has a policy favoring the use of consensual agreements to resolve marital controversies.
"fair and definitive arrangements arrived at by mutual consent should not be unnecessarily or lightly disturbed."
Alimony, maintenance and support, for a dependent spouse, may clearly be the subject of a voluntary and consensual agreement undertaken as part of the termination of marriage and divorce.
2) Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149, 151, 456 A.2d 102 (1983)
Remarriage justifies the termination of alimony without regard to the economic circumstances of the dependent spouse who has remarried.
4. Application
The Court made a decision that termination of the spousal support is valid based on the following reasons;
1) The parties feely entered the consensual agreement and the termination provision. In addition, the agreement has been judged fair and equitable. Therefore, it is not required to consider the financial circumstances or economic status of the independent spouse. The new marriage-like relationship can be a cause of the termination of the support because the agreement is fair, mutually agreed, and equitable.
2) The spouse’s new relationship and cohabitation can be considered a change in circumstances triggering revisiting the alimony. The economic benefit from the cohabitation can decrease the alimony proportionately. And the contractual termination of alimony upon cohabitation is not violative of either statutory or public policy.
3) The parties were fully informed and consented the provision of termination. They fully understood the cohabitation provision and had an opportunity to negotiate the term.
4) Cohabitation involves an intimate relationship in which the couple live together, have joint bank accounts, share living expense and household chores undertaking duties and privileges commonly associated with marriage. The fact that Kathleen and Mr. Liput live together, spend most of time, share house chores, and have a joint bank account is sufficient evidence to decide that cohabitation can terminate the support.
5. Conclusion
Yes. The Court affirmed. Because the provision terminating alimony upon cohabitation is fair.
6. Dissenting
The Court did not consider an uneven economic playing field for women. The termination provision can be an exchange of the freedom as a bargaining tool. The Court ignored an economic test as cohabitation is considered marriage. However, economic measure is the most important measure of alimony. Therefore, to protect women’s economic status, the Court should have considered economic circumstances and economic obligation.
|