Utah Court of Appeals
What constitutes cohabitation for alimony termination in Utah? Myers v. Myers Explained
Summary
Former wife lived at her parents’ home where she slept on a basement couch while her parents’ teenage foster son lived upstairs. The trial court terminated alimony based on cohabitation, finding the parties shared common residency and had a sexual relationship.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Myers v. Myers, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the standards for determining when cohabitation justifies terminating alimony under Utah Code section 30-3-5(10). The decision provides important guidance on how courts should analyze relationships that fall short of marriage-like arrangements.
Background and Facts
After an eighteen-year marriage ended in divorce, the former wife was awarded alimony. She subsequently lived intermittently at her parents’ home, spending approximately 80% of her nights there according to the trial court’s findings. During this period, her parents were foster parents to several teenage boys, including M.H. The former wife slept on a basement couch while M.H. lived upstairs in a shared bedroom with other foster children. Evidence suggested the former wife and M.H. had a romantic relationship, with witnesses testifying they acted like boyfriend and girlfriend and may have had sexual contact.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the relationship between the former wife and M.H. constituted cohabitation under Utah law sufficient to terminate alimony. The trial court applied a two-part test examining common residency and sexual contact, but the Court of Appeals found this analysis incomplete.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that cohabitation requires more than just common residency and sexual contact. Drawing from Haddow v. Haddow, the court emphasized that cohabitation means living together in a relationship “akin to that generally existing between husband and wife.” The court found no evidence of shared expenses, shared decision-making, shared living space, or shared meals—hallmarks of a marriage-like relationship. The parties’ arrangement, while romantic, did not rise to the level of cohabitation justifying alimony termination.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah courts must look beyond superficial indicators when evaluating cohabitation claims. Practitioners should focus on evidence of shared household responsibilities, financial arrangements, and the overall nature of the relationship when either pursuing or defending against alimony termination motions based on cohabitation.
Case Details
Case Name
Myers v. Myers
Citation
2010 UT App 74
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20080911-CA
Date Decided
April 1, 2010
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Cohabitation for alimony termination purposes requires a relationship akin to marriage, not merely common residency and sexual contact under the same roof.
Standard of Review
Mixed question of fact and law: clearly erroneous for factual findings, correctness for ultimate legal conclusion
Practice Tip
When defending against cohabitation claims, emphasize the absence of shared household indicators like joint expenses, shared decision-making, common living space, and the overall nature of the relationship compared to marriage.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.