Husband Alleges Cohabitation as Reason for Failed Alimony Payments

by Joseph C. Maya on May. 05, 2017

Divorce & Family Law Divorce & Family Law  Divorce Divorce & Family Law  Family Law 

Summary: Blog post about a man who stopped making alimony payments because he believed his ex-wife was co-habitating with someone else.

If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

A husband was found in contempt for failing to make alimony payments as ordered, even though he had strong suspicions that his wife was cohabitating at the time.

The plaintiff and defendant were married on September 13, 1975. On December 13, 1994, the parties entered into a separation agreement, and on that same day, was granted a judgment of dissolution. The separation agreement required the defendant to make weekly alimony payments in the amount of $775 from January 2, 1995 through December 27, 1999. On December 31, 1997, the defendant made his last payment. The plaintiff filed a motion for contempt, finding the defendant was $21,000 short of his alimony obligations at that time. The husband cross-motioned, and alleged that the plaintiff was cohabitating.

On appeal, the Supreme Court found these allegations inconsistent. During the trial, the defendant had testified that he had stopped making weekly alimony payments in 1995 because he had undergone open heart surgery. In fact, the defendant had previously testified that he did not learn of the cohabitation until a year later. Ultimately, the court found that the record was inconsistent and inadequate for review. The court ordered that the remainder of the alimony be paid, but declined to rule on the issue of cohabitation.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Source: Knapp v. Knapp,  856 A.2d 358 (Conn. 2004).

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.