Utah Court of Appeals
What factors determine cohabitation for alimony termination in Utah? Christensen v. Christensen Explained
Summary
After Brent Christensen retired and Elena began cohabiting with a boyfriend, Brent petitioned to modify alimony and child support. The trial court denied termination of alimony based on cohabitation, reduced prospective alimony payments, denied child support modification, and awarded Elena a judgment for arrearages.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the critical question of what constitutes cohabitation sufficient to terminate alimony in Christensen v. Christensen. This case provides important guidance on the proper legal factors courts must consider when determining whether a former spouse’s living arrangement warrants alimony termination.
Background and Facts
After Brent and Elena Christensen divorced in 2012, Brent was ordered to pay $1,200 monthly in alimony. When Brent retired in 2014, Elena began receiving $800 monthly from his pension. Elena also moved in with her boyfriend, sharing a bedroom and signing a written agreement to pay $500 monthly for housing expenses. Brent petitioned to terminate alimony based on Elena’s cohabitation, but the trial court denied the request after finding insufficient evidence of cohabitation.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether Elena’s living arrangement with her boyfriend constituted cohabitation under Utah Code section 30-3-5(10). The trial court had considered several factors, including whether Elena held herself out as married to her boyfriend and whether they had a reputation as husband and wife.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals clarified the proper framework for analyzing cohabitation claims. Under Myers v. Myers, courts must examine the “general hallmarks of marriage,” including shared residence, intimate relationship, and shared household expenses. However, the court emphasized that whether parties hold themselves out as married or have a reputation as spouses is not relevant to the cohabitation analysis. The trial court erred by considering these irrelevant factors, requiring remand for proper analysis under the correct legal standard.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that practitioners should focus their cohabitation arguments on the substantive elements of shared living rather than public perception. The relevant considerations include shared expenses, joint decision-making, length of relationship, and time spent together. Courts should not consider whether parties present themselves as married to the public, as this factor is irrelevant to the statutory cohabitation analysis for alimony termination purposes.
Case Details
Case Name
Christensen v. Christensen
Citation
2017 UT App 120
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150994-CA
Date Decided
July 20, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Remanded in part
Holding
Trial courts may not consider whether parties hold themselves out as married when determining cohabitation for alimony termination purposes under Utah Code section 30-3-5(10).
Standard of Review
Mixed question of fact and law for cohabitation (factual findings reviewed for clear error, legal conclusion reviewed for correctness); abuse of discretion for employment capacity, substantial change in circumstances, voluntary unemployment, income imputation, retroactive modification, and child support calculations; clearly erroneous for factual findings
Practice Tip
When arguing cohabitation cases, focus on the Myers factors of shared residence, intimate relationship, and shared household expenses rather than whether parties hold themselves out as married.
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.