gphjr said:
Nope, you gotta keep paying.
My response:
gphjr - you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Read my response, and learn.
Presumptive decreased need for support on account of opposite-sex cohabitation:
Unless the parties have "otherwise agreed" in writing, 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. [Ca Fam § 4323(a)(1)]
In other words, the obligee's opposite-sex cohabitation is a presumptive material change of circumstances justifying a spousal support reduction "because sharing a household gives rise to economies of scale . . . [and], more importantly, the cohabitant's income may be available to the obligee spouse." [Marriage of Bower (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 893, 899, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 520, 525]
Thus, pursuant to § 4323(a)(1), the obligor will prevail on a request to terminate or reduce spousal support upon proof the supported party is living with a person of the opposite sex . . . unless the parties agreed in writing this occurrence would not be a basis for modification or the obligee rebuts the presumption by sufficient proof the cohabitation has not affected his or her need for support. [See Marriage of Schroeder (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1154, 238 Cal.Rptr. 12--court erred in failing to reduce support for ex-wife who had commenced nonmarital cohabitation]
Triggering "cohabitation":
An obligor seeking a spousal support reduction or termination need simply show the obligee is now "cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex." A "Marvin-type" nonmarital cohabitation relationship is not required: "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." [Ca Fam § 4323(a)(2)]
"Boarding arrangement" not enough:
However, the statute contemplates more than a simple roommate or "boarding arrangement." There must be a showing of a sexual, romantic or at least a "homemaker-companion" relationship. [See Marriage of Thweatt (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 530, 157 Cal.Rptr. 826; Marriage of Regnery (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1367, 263 Cal.Rptr. 243--§ 4323(a) presumption inapplicable where alleged cohabitant shown to be renting "tenant"; compare Marriage of Bower, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 900-901, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d at 525-526--parties' relationship changed from mere "room-mates" to "cohabitation," triggering § 4323 (a)(1) presumption]
By the same token, a boarding or other cohabitation relationship that is not sufficient to trigger the statutory presumption might still amount to a factual change of circumstances warranting a support decrease--as where the supported party's living expenses are partially offset by rent received from a tenant. The obligor may still prevail on a support decrease request, although without the aid of the statutory presumption. [See Ca Fam § 4323(c)--"Nothing in this section precludes later modification or termination of spousal support on proof of change of circumstances"]
IAAL
