• People

    Advanced Search

  • Services
  • All Services

  • If an alimony recipient lives with an unrelated person, the cohabitation may justify a modification or termination of an alimony obligation. The Courts look at two things:

    1. Is there “cohabitation” by the alimony recipient? If yes, the dependent spouse will have the burden to prove a continued financial need based on his or her individual economic circumstances in order to preserve alimony payments.
    2. What is the economic effect of his or her cohabitation and does it warrant termination or modification of the supporting spouse’s payment of alimony? Assessment of financial need rests on whether there is a decrease in need (a) because he or she is receiving support from the person with whom he or she is cohabiting, or (b) due to the probability that the alimony is being used to support the person with whom he or she is cohabiting. Because this is generally only known by the dependent, the burden to prove continued financial need falls on the recipient of the alimony. If he or she does not come forward, the payer should be entitled to terminate his or her alimony obligation.

    In many cases, the effect of cohabitation on the alimony obligation will be specifically addressed in a Marital Settlement or Property Settlement Agreement. In cases where neither Agreement specifically addresses the issue of cohabitation, the Courts have held that state case law applies. In these cases, the Court must analyze seven factors to assess the nature of the relationship and determine whether alimony should be suspended or terminated as a result of the cohabitation:

    1. Intertwined finances such as joint bank accounts and other joint holdings or liabilities;
    2. Shared or joint responsibility for living expenses;
    3. Recognition of the relationship in the couple’s social family circle;
    4. Shared premise, frequency of contact, duration of the relationship, and other indicia of a mutually supportive intimate personal relationship;
    5. Shared household chores;
    6. Whether the recipient of alimony has received an enforceable promise of support from another person; and,
    7. All other relevant evidence.

    The Courts use the length of the relationship as a deciding factor to determine whether a suspension or modification of an alimony obligation is appropriate. The longer the cohabitation, the more likely a change in alimony is warranted.

    Contact a New Jersey Cohabitation Lawyer or Leave Us a Message

    Firm Highlights

    Stark & Stark Joins Growing Coalition of Law Firms in Defense of Constitutional Principles and the Independence of the Legal Profession

    Stark & Stark has joined hundreds of fellow law firms across the country in filing an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner...

    Stark & Stark Attorneys Recognized as New Jersey “Super Lawyers” and “Rising Stars” in 2026

    Stark & Stark is pleased to announce that 15 of its attorneys have been selected for inclusion in the list of 2026 New Jersey Super Lawyers,...

    Bruce Stern, Esq. Secures $1,000,000 Settlement in Motor Vehicle Collision Case

    Bruce Stern, Esq. recently secured a $1,000,000 settlement in a motor vehicle collision case.* “This case highlights how quickly things can go...

    Deborah Dunn, Esq. Elected to Board of Directors for Angel Flight East

    Stark & Stark is pleased to announce that Deborah Dunn, Esq., Shareholder and Civil Trial Attorney, has been elected to the Board of Directors...

    Michael Jordan, Esq. Joins the Board of the Lawrence Township Community Foundation

    It is our pleasure to announce that Michael Jordan, Esq. has joined the board of the Lawrence Township Community Foundation, an organization...

    Stark & Stark Opens Newtown, Pennsylvania Location

    Stark & Stark announced the relocation of its Yardley, Pennsylvania office to a new location in Newtown, PA. The new office is now open and...

    Joseph Lemkin, Esq. Named to ROI-NJ Influencers: Power List 2026 – Law

    Stark & Stark is proud to share that Joseph Lemkin, Esq., Shareholder, has been named to the 2026 Influencers: Power List in the Law category...

    Jeffrey A. Krawitz, Esq. and Michael C. Ksiazek, Esq. Secure $1,000,000 Settlement in Medical Malpractice Wrongful Death Case

    Jeffrey A. Krawitz, Esq. and Michael C. Ksiazek, Esq. recently secured a $1,000,000 settlement in a medical malpractice wrongful death...

    Joseph Cullen, Esq. and Nicole Durso, Esq. Secure $2,000,000 Settlement in Personal Injury Matter

    Joseph Cullen, Esq. and Nicole Durso, Esq. recently secured a $2,000,000 settlement in a personal injury matter involving a pedestrian who was struck...

    Stark & Stark Welcomes Susan L. Swatski, Esq. to the Firm

    Continuing in its mission to provide its clients innovative legal solutions to meet their needs, Stark & Stark PC, announced today that Susan L....

    Tim Duggan Wins Eminent Domain Challenge – Case Dismissed

    We are pleased to share that Tim Duggan of our Condemnation, Redevelopment, and Eminent Domain Group was successful in protecting the owner of a...

    James Creegan, Esq. Appointed to Board of The 200 Club of Mercer County

    It is our pleasure to announce that James Creegan, Esq. has been appointed to the Board of Directors of The 200 Club of Mercer County, an...