What factual findings must courts make when determining cohabitant status under Utah's domestic violence laws? Keene v. Bonser Explained

In Keene v. Bonser, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question about what constitutes a cohabitant under Utah’s Cohabitant Abuse Act and the factual findings required to support such determinations.

Background and Facts

Ashley Bonser, a Wyoming resident, met Andrea Keene in Manila, Utah, where he would stay at her trailer while fishing on Flaming Gorge Reservoir. The parties maintained an intimate relationship from March through May 2003, with disputes about how frequently and for how long Bonser stayed at Keene’s residence. After Keene filed for a protective order under the Cohabitant Abuse Act, the district court determined Bonser was a “cohabitant” because he “had resided in the same residence” as Keene, but made no specific factual findings to support this conclusion.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three main issues: whether Bonser legally “resided in the same residence” as Keene under Utah Code Ann. § 30-6-1(2)(f), whether the district court made adequate factual findings to support its legal conclusion, and whether the evidence could support a finding of cohabitant status.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals clarified that “cohabitant” under the Act should be given a common, nontechnical meaning, defining “reside” as “to dwell permanently or for a length of time” and “residence” as “a temporary or permanent dwelling place, abode, or habitation to which one intends to return.” The court identified several nonexclusive factors for analysis: time spent at the residence, effort in upkeep, freedom to come and go, sharing of expenses, sexual contact evidencing conjugal association, and movement of personal items. However, because the district court failed to make detailed factual findings and the evidence was disputed on key points, the court reversed and remanded for proper factual findings.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that determining cohabitant status requires case-by-case factual analysis with detailed findings. Courts cannot rely on broad, conclusory statements but must examine specific evidence about the relationship between the person and the residence. The ruling also confirms that the Cohabitant Abuse Act’s definition is broader than traditional legal residence or domicile concepts, reflecting the Legislature’s intent to provide expansive protection for domestic violence victims.