Mr. Bell and Mrs. Bell got a
divorce. As part of the divorce settlement, Mr. Bell agreed to pay alimony to Mrs. Bell until one of three things
happened; she died, remarried, or "lived together with a member of
the opposite sex, so as to give the outward appearance of marriage."
That's third one is known as
a cohabitation clause.
Mrs. Bell started dating a
dude named J.R. They maintained separate residences, but always slept in
the same bed. They didn't share assets, but they did share furniture and
expenses and took vacations together, etc.
Mr. Bell decided that this
counted, and stopped paying alimony.
Mrs. Bell filed a contempt complaint to force Mr. Bell to continue
paying.
The Trial Court dismissed the
complaint. Mrs. Bell appealed.
The Trial Court found that
sharing a bedroom with J.R. on a regular basis for three years was enough
to count as "living with a member of the opposite sex."
Basically, the Court found
that 'shared intimacy' equaled giving the outward appearance of
marriage.
The Appellate Court reversed.
Mr. Bell appealed.
The Appellate Court found
that the cohabitation clause
should be read to only come into effect when Mrs. Bell had acquired
"significant actual support" from a new man.
In this case, J.R. wasn't
really supporting her financially.
The Massachusetts Supreme
Court reversed the Appellate Court and found that Mr. Bell did not have to
pay alimony.
The Massachusetts Supreme
Court looked at the plain language of the cohabitation clause and found that it should be read as the Trial
Court read it.
The Court found that the
clause could have been written to say that alimony only ends when Mrs. Bell gets a new source of
financial support, but that's not the way it was written.
In a dissent it was argued
that, although Mrs. Bell and J.R. were involved in a relationship, they
were not technically living together, and certainly not giving the
"outward appearance of being married."
Basically, they felt that
'shared intimacy' shouldn't be the standard for giving the outward
appearance of marriage, there needed to be an economic aspect to the
relationship.
The 'dead' and 'remarried'
clauses negate the alimony
because Mrs. Bell wouldn't need it anymore. But J.R. wasn't giving her
any money so she probably still needed to alimony.
