PAUL V. PAUL
60 A.3d 1080 (2012)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Joseph (H) appealed a judgment that denied his petition to terminate
alimony; H claimed that the Family Court applied the incorrect legal standard in deciding
whether Shannon (W) and her companion were cohabiting.
FACTS: H and W were divorced in 2006. Their divorce agreement provided that alimony shall
terminate upon 'cohabitation of Wife as that term is defined in 13 Del. C. 1512(g).' W
became romantically involved and H hired an investigator to conduct surveillance for the
purpose of determining whether W was cohabiting. H filed a petition to terminate alimony
based on the investigators report. The investigator saw Vance's car at W's house 25 of the
37 days that he observed. The car was there late at night and early the next morning. Vance
was observed 'retrieving the paper, taking the trash out, feeding the cat, opening the
garage door (which he knew the code to), and watering plants, all on multiple occasions.'
Vance also did yard work and escorted a painter into the house. W testified she had an
exclusive relationship and that he stays at her house about two to four nights a week. She
stated she could not live with Vance because he is neat and she is messy. They both
maintained separate homes. The Family Court held that H failed to establish that W
permanently or continuously resides with Vance. H appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment