Cohabitation
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Live-in+relationship
A living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that
resembles a marriage.
Couples cohabit, rather than marry, for a variety of reasons. They may want to test their compatibility
before they commit to a legal union. They may want to maintain their single status for financial
reasons. In some cases, such as those involving gay or lesbian couples, or individuals already
married to another person, the law does not allow them to marry. In other cases, the partners may
feel that marriage is unnecessary. Whatever the reasons, between 1970 and 1990, the number of
couples living together outside of marriage quadrupled, from 523,000 to nearly 3 million. These
couples face some of the same legal issues as married couples, as well as some issues that their
married friends need never consider.
In most places, it is legal for unmarried people to live together, although some Zoning laws prohibit
more than three unrelated people from inhabiting a house or apartment. A few states still prohibit
fornication, or sexual relations between an unmarried man and woman, but such laws are no
longer enforced. Even in the early twenty-first century, some states continue to prohibit Sodomy,
which includes sexual relations between people of the same sex. Although these laws are rarely
enforced, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these sodomy statutes as applied
to same-sex couples in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S. Ct. 2841, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140
(1986). The Court reconsidered the same issue 17 years later, however, and decided that a Texas
sodomy law that applied specifically to homosexual conduct violated the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment (lawrence v. texas, 539 U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 2472,156 L. Ed. 2d 508
[2003]). Advocates of Gay and Lesbian Rights viewed the case as a victory for their cause.
The law traditionally has been biased in favor of marriage. Public policy supports marriage as
necessary to the stability of the family, the basic societal unit. To preserve and encourage marriage,
the law reserves many rights and privileges to married persons. Cohabitation carries none of those
rights and privileges. It has been said that cohabitation has all of the headaches of marriage without
any of the benefits. Cohabiting couples have little guidance as to their legal rights in such areas as
property ownership, responsibility for debts, custody, access to health care and other benefits, and
survivorship.
Family Law experts advise cohabiting couples to address these and other issues in a written
cohabitation agreement, similar to a Premarital Agreement. The contract should outline how the
couple will divide expenses and own property, whether they will maintain joint or separate bank
accounts, and how their assets will be distributed if one partner dies or leaves the relationship.
Property acquired during cohabitation, such as real estate, home furnishings, antiques, artwork,
china, silver, tools, and sports equipment, may be contested if partners separate or if one of them
dies. To avoid this, the agreement should clearly outline who is entitled to what.
When cohabiting couples separate, division of assets often becomes a contentious issue. In the
past, courts refused to enforce agreements between unmarried couples to share income or assets,
holding that such agreements were against public policy. In 1976, the California Supreme Court
decided Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106, holding that
agreements between cohabiting couples to share income received during the time they live together
can be legally binding and enforceable. The highly publicized suit between actor Lee Marvin and his
live-in companion, Michelle Triola Marvin, was the first of a series of "palimony" suits that have
become more numerous since the 1980s. The plaintiff in a palimony suit must prove that the
agreement of financial support is not a meretricious agreement, that is, one made in exchange for a
promise of sexual relations. Courts refuse to enforce meretricious contracts because of their
similarity to contracts for prostitution.
The only way to guarantee that a valid agreement of support or division of property exists is to have
it in writing. In the Marvin case, the plaintiff, who asked for $1.6 million, was awarded only $104,000.
An appeals court revoked that amount and found that the plaintiff had failed to show that she and
the defendant had an agreement (Marvin v. Marvin, 122 Cal. App. 3d 871, 176 Cal. Rptr. 555 [Cal.
Ct. App. 1981]). Conversely, when tennis star Martina Navratilova separated from live-in lover Judy
Nelson in 1993, Nelson filed a $16 million palimony suit, claiming that Navratilova reneged on a
promise to share whatever the couple accumulated during their relationship. A signed and
videotaped 1986 cohabitation agreement supported Nelson's claim, and Navratilova settled out of
court for an undisclosed amount.
Cohabiting parents may face legal difficulties if they separate without a written parenting agreement.
An unmarried father must acknowledge Paternity by filing an Affidavit with the state legitimating his
child and establishing his parental relationship. Likewise, both parents must actively participate in
the raising of the child in order to have a legitimate claim to custody or visitation. By legitimating their
child and being involved in the child's upbringing, unmarried parents establish their right to seek
custody or visitation if the family breaks up. Legitimation is also important for inheritance purposes. If
an unmarried father dies without a will, his legitimated child can freely inherit his estate (see Trimble
v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S. Ct. 1459, 52 L. Ed. 2d 31 [1977], which held that a signed statement
establishing paternity of a child born out of wedlock is adequate protection of the child's inheritance
rights). Of course, the best way to guarantee the distribution of assets to children is through a
written will.
Cohabiting couples may face difficulties when one of them becomes ill and requires hospitalization
or long-term care. The case of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson illustrates this problem.
Kowalski and Thompson lived together for four years before Kowalski sustained serious head
injuries in a 1983 automobile accident. She was left paralyzed and seriously brain damaged, but
able to communicate. Kowalski's parents refused to allow Thompson to see her or to participate in
decisions about her treatment. In 1984, Kowalski's father was awarded guardianship of Kowalski
(In re Kowalski, 382 N.W.2d 861 [Minn. Ct. App. 1986] and the family continued to frustrate
Thompson's efforts to see or assist Kowalski. In 1991, Kowalski's father voluntarily gave up his
guardianship for medical reasons, and a Minnesota trial court awarded guardianship to Karen
Tomberlin, a family friend whom the court considered a "neutral third party." The Minnesota Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court, and after a seven-year battle, Thompson was finally granted
guardianship of Kowalski (In re Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790 [Minn. Ct. App. 1991]). The court held
that Kowalski had "sufficient capacity" to express her preference as to a guardian and that she had
consistently said she wanted to be with Thompson. The court also noted the duration of the
couple's relationship as well as the fact that they had exchanged rings and named each other as
insurance beneficiaries before Kowalski's accident.
Cohabiting couples can avoid such conflicts by executing certain documents, including a durable
Power of Attorney and a medical power of attorney. A durable power of attorney grants an
unmarried partner the necessary authority to make decisions in the event of physical or mental
disability of the other partner. It goes further than a general power of attorney in that it specifically
allows one partner to continue making decisions even if the other partner becomes incapacitated. A
medical power of attorney allows one partner to make decisions regarding medical treatment for the
other. If the partners have specific instructions about funeral arrangements, these too should be put
in writing. In addition, a written will or trust allows partners to specify the distribution of their property,
including life insurance benefits, IRAs, and bank accounts. Partners may also name their preferred
trustee or executor.
Many cohabiting heterosexual couples believe that the law will recognize their relation-ship as a
Common-Law Marriage with the legal protections and financial benefits of marriage. However, only
Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah recognize common-law
marriage. In those states, a man and woman who live together and represent themselves as
married may be given common-law recognition. Once a common-law marriage has been
established, it must be dissolved through Divorce. Cohabiting couples who live in a state that
recognizes common-law marriage and do not wish to be married should execute a statement that
they are not married in order to avoid a later finding that a common-law marriage existed.
In the 1990s, a few courts began to recognize the familial ties of unmarried couples. In Braschi v.
Stahl Associates, 74 N.Y.2d 201, 543 N.E.2d 49, 544 N.Y.S.2d 784 (1989), New York State's
highest court found that a homosexual man and his deceased life partner had constituted a family
for purposes of New York City's rent control ordinance. The court found that in this case, the term
family should be construed broadly and should encompass contemporary realities, including
unmarried adult partners in a long-term, committed relationship that shows mutual sharing of the
mundane tasks of everyday life. Similarly, in Dunphy v. Gregor, 261 N.J. Super. 110, 617 A.2d 1248
(N.J. 1992), the court found that a woman who had witnessed the events leading to her fiancé's
death had standing to sue for the emotional damage she suffered as a result. Previously, suits such
as this (called bystander liability suits) were limited to those who were married or had blood ties to
the victim. However, the court in Dunphy found that the plaintiff met the requirement of "intimate
familial relationship," noting that the plaintiff and her fiancé had lived together for several years, that
there was a high degree of mutual dependence in their relationship, and that they contributed to and
shared a common life.
Since the 1980s, a growing number of states and municipalities have passed laws allowing
unmarried couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, to register as domestic partners. Some
cities have established a domestic partner registry, while others extend certain benefits to domestic
partners even if the city does not provide a registry. The state of California leads the nation in the
number of cities and counties that provide benefits to domestic partners, offer domestic partner
registries, or both. Cities providing domestic partner benefits include New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia. The ordinances and statues in these cities allow couples to
register as domestic partners, and to dissolve their partnerships if they separate.
Two 1995 court decisions declared particular domestic partner ordinances invalid. In Lilly v. City of
Minneapolis, 527 N.W. 2d 107, the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a Minneapolis city
council resolution authorizing reimbursement to city employees for health care insurance costs for
same-sex domestic partners and for blood relatives not classified as dependents under state law.
The court held that the resolution was beyond the scope of the council's authority and lacked legal
force. Likewise, in City of Atlanta v. McKinney, 265 Ga. 161, 454 S.E.2d 517, the Supreme Court of
Georgia held that the city of Atlanta had exceeded its authority when it had extended employee
benefits to persons who did not qualify as dependents under state law.
Some same-sex cohabitants face other types of legal challenges. In Garcia v. Garcia, 60 P.3d 1174
(Utah Ct. App. 2002), the Utah Court of Appeals held that an ex-wife's involvement in a same-sex
relationship constituted cohabitation for the purpose of determining whether the exhusband's
Alimony payments should be terminated. Under Utah law, a court's order requiring alimony
payments from one spouse to the other terminates upon proof that the spouse receiving alimony is
cohabiting with another person. The ex-wife allegedly maintained a long-term relationship with
another woman, during which time she shared a common residency and had sexual contact. The
trial court held that the statute's definition of cohabitation applied only to relationships between
members of the opposite sex. The appeals court disagreed, holding that the term "sexual contact" in
the statute also included such contact between members of the same sex, and reversed the trial
court's decision.
Further readings
American Bar Association. 1994. Family Legal Guide. New York: Random House.
Dailey, Patricia A. 1994. "Domestic Partnerships in the Nineties." Delaware Lawyer (summer).
Duff, Johnette, and George G. Truitt. 1992. The Spousal Equivalent Handbook: A Legal and
Financial Guide to Living Together. New York: Penguin, NAL/Dutton.
Ihara, Toni, Robin Leonard, and Ralph Warner. 1994. The Living Together Kit. 7th ed. Berkeley,
Calif.: Nolo Press.
Richardson, David G. 1993. "Family Rights for Unmarried Couples." Kansas Journal of Law and
Public Policy (spring).
Samuels, M. Dee. 1995. "You Don't Have to Be Married to Be Legal." Compleat Lawyer (winter).
Wallman, Lester. 1994. Cupid, Couples, and Contracts: A Guide to Living Together, Prenuptial
Agreements, and Divorce. New York: MasterMedia.
Cross-references
Parent and Child.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights
reserved.
cohabitation
n. living together in the same residence, generally either as husband and wife or for an extended
period of time as if the parties were married. Cohabitation implies that the parties are having sexual
intercourse while living together, but the definition would not apply to a casual sexual encounter.
Legal tests have been filed to determine whether cohabitation would refer to same sex partners,
which is important to those involved since "cohabitation" is the basis of certain rights and privileges
under various laws, regulations and contracts. The findings of the courts vary on this question, but
the trend is to include long-standing homosexual relationships as cohabitation.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
cohabitation(Living together), noun abiding tooether, act of dwelling together, alliance, living
together in sexual intimacy, lodging together, lodging together as hussand and wife, occupying the
same domicile, residing tooether, rooming together
Associated concepts: cohabiting in a state of adultery, illicit cohabitation, lewd and lascivious
cohabitation
Foreign phrases: Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit.Not cohabitation but consent makes
the valid marriage.
cohabitation(Married state), noun act of living tooether as husband and wife, act of pairing, bond of
matriiony, conjugal bliss, conjugality, connubiality, coverture, domestication, legal relation of
spouses to each other, legal union of a man and a woman, marriage, married status, matrimony,
nuptial bond, nuptial tie, state of matrimony, union, vinculo matrimonii, wedded state, wedded status,
wedlock
Associated concepts: bigamous cohabitation, cohabiting in a state of adultery, matrimonial
cohabitation, polygamous cohabitation
Foreign phrases: Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit.Not cohabitation but consent makes
the marriage.
See also: marriage, matrimony
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
COHABITATION. Living together.
2. The law presumes that husband and wife cohabit, even after a voluntary separation has taken
place between them; but where there has been a divorce a mensa et thoro, or a sentence of
separation, the presumption then arises that they have obeyed the sentence or decree, and do not
live together.
3. A criminal cohabitation will not be presumed by the proof of a single act of criminal intercourse
between a man and woman not married. 10 Mass. R. 153.
4. When a woman is proved to cohabit with a man and to assume his name with his consent, he
will generally be responsible for her debts as if she had been his wife; 2 Esp. R. 637; 1 Campb. R.
245; this being presumptive evidence of marriage; B. N. P. 114; but this liability will continue only
while they live together, unless she is actually his were. 4 Campb. R. 215.
5. In civil actions for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife, after the husband and wife
have separated, the plaintiff will not in general be entitled to recover. 1 Esp. R. 16; S. C. 5 T. R. 357;
Peake's Cas. 7, 39; sed vide 6 East, 248; 4 Esp. 39.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier.
Published 1856.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Live-in+relationship
A living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that
resembles a marriage.
Couples cohabit, rather than marry, for a variety of reasons. They may want to test their compatibility
before they commit to a legal union. They may want to maintain their single status for financial
reasons. In some cases, such as those involving gay or lesbian couples, or individuals already
married to another person, the law does not allow them to marry. In other cases, the partners may
feel that marriage is unnecessary. Whatever the reasons, between 1970 and 1990, the number of
couples living together outside of marriage quadrupled, from 523,000 to nearly 3 million. These
couples face some of the same legal issues as married couples, as well as some issues that their
married friends need never consider.
In most places, it is legal for unmarried people to live together, although some Zoning laws prohibit
more than three unrelated people from inhabiting a house or apartment. A few states still prohibit
fornication, or sexual relations between an unmarried man and woman, but such laws are no
longer enforced. Even in the early twenty-first century, some states continue to prohibit Sodomy,
which includes sexual relations between people of the same sex. Although these laws are rarely
enforced, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these sodomy statutes as applied
to same-sex couples in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S. Ct. 2841, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140
(1986). The Court reconsidered the same issue 17 years later, however, and decided that a Texas
sodomy law that applied specifically to homosexual conduct violated the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment (lawrence v. texas, 539 U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 2472,156 L. Ed. 2d 508
[2003]). Advocates of Gay and Lesbian Rights viewed the case as a victory for their cause.
The law traditionally has been biased in favor of marriage. Public policy supports marriage as
necessary to the stability of the family, the basic societal unit. To preserve and encourage marriage,
the law reserves many rights and privileges to married persons. Cohabitation carries none of those
rights and privileges. It has been said that cohabitation has all of the headaches of marriage without
any of the benefits. Cohabiting couples have little guidance as to their legal rights in such areas as
property ownership, responsibility for debts, custody, access to health care and other benefits, and
survivorship.
Family Law experts advise cohabiting couples to address these and other issues in a written
cohabitation agreement, similar to a Premarital Agreement. The contract should outline how the
couple will divide expenses and own property, whether they will maintain joint or separate bank
accounts, and how their assets will be distributed if one partner dies or leaves the relationship.
Property acquired during cohabitation, such as real estate, home furnishings, antiques, artwork,
china, silver, tools, and sports equipment, may be contested if partners separate or if one of them
dies. To avoid this, the agreement should clearly outline who is entitled to what.
When cohabiting couples separate, division of assets often becomes a contentious issue. In the
past, courts refused to enforce agreements between unmarried couples to share income or assets,
holding that such agreements were against public policy. In 1976, the California Supreme Court
decided Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106, holding that
agreements between cohabiting couples to share income received during the time they live together
can be legally binding and enforceable. The highly publicized suit between actor Lee Marvin and his
live-in companion, Michelle Triola Marvin, was the first of a series of "palimony" suits that have
become more numerous since the 1980s. The plaintiff in a palimony suit must prove that the
agreement of financial support is not a meretricious agreement, that is, one made in exchange for a
promise of sexual relations. Courts refuse to enforce meretricious contracts because of their
similarity to contracts for prostitution.
The only way to guarantee that a valid agreement of support or division of property exists is to have
it in writing. In the Marvin case, the plaintiff, who asked for $1.6 million, was awarded only $104,000.
An appeals court revoked that amount and found that the plaintiff had failed to show that she and
the defendant had an agreement (Marvin v. Marvin, 122 Cal. App. 3d 871, 176 Cal. Rptr. 555 [Cal.
Ct. App. 1981]). Conversely, when tennis star Martina Navratilova separated from live-in lover Judy
Nelson in 1993, Nelson filed a $16 million palimony suit, claiming that Navratilova reneged on a
promise to share whatever the couple accumulated during their relationship. A signed and
videotaped 1986 cohabitation agreement supported Nelson's claim, and Navratilova settled out of
court for an undisclosed amount.
Cohabiting parents may face legal difficulties if they separate without a written parenting agreement.
An unmarried father must acknowledge Paternity by filing an Affidavit with the state legitimating his
child and establishing his parental relationship. Likewise, both parents must actively participate in
the raising of the child in order to have a legitimate claim to custody or visitation. By legitimating their
child and being involved in the child's upbringing, unmarried parents establish their right to seek
custody or visitation if the family breaks up. Legitimation is also important for inheritance purposes. If
an unmarried father dies without a will, his legitimated child can freely inherit his estate (see Trimble
v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S. Ct. 1459, 52 L. Ed. 2d 31 [1977], which held that a signed statement
establishing paternity of a child born out of wedlock is adequate protection of the child's inheritance
rights). Of course, the best way to guarantee the distribution of assets to children is through a
written will.
Cohabiting couples may face difficulties when one of them becomes ill and requires hospitalization
or long-term care. The case of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson illustrates this problem.
Kowalski and Thompson lived together for four years before Kowalski sustained serious head
injuries in a 1983 automobile accident. She was left paralyzed and seriously brain damaged, but
able to communicate. Kowalski's parents refused to allow Thompson to see her or to participate in
decisions about her treatment. In 1984, Kowalski's father was awarded guardianship of Kowalski
(In re Kowalski, 382 N.W.2d 861 [Minn. Ct. App. 1986] and the family continued to frustrate
Thompson's efforts to see or assist Kowalski. In 1991, Kowalski's father voluntarily gave up his
guardianship for medical reasons, and a Minnesota trial court awarded guardianship to Karen
Tomberlin, a family friend whom the court considered a "neutral third party." The Minnesota Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court, and after a seven-year battle, Thompson was finally granted
guardianship of Kowalski (In re Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790 [Minn. Ct. App. 1991]). The court held
that Kowalski had "sufficient capacity" to express her preference as to a guardian and that she had
consistently said she wanted to be with Thompson. The court also noted the duration of the
couple's relationship as well as the fact that they had exchanged rings and named each other as
insurance beneficiaries before Kowalski's accident.
Cohabiting couples can avoid such conflicts by executing certain documents, including a durable
Power of Attorney and a medical power of attorney. A durable power of attorney grants an
unmarried partner the necessary authority to make decisions in the event of physical or mental
disability of the other partner. It goes further than a general power of attorney in that it specifically
allows one partner to continue making decisions even if the other partner becomes incapacitated. A
medical power of attorney allows one partner to make decisions regarding medical treatment for the
other. If the partners have specific instructions about funeral arrangements, these too should be put
in writing. In addition, a written will or trust allows partners to specify the distribution of their property,
including life insurance benefits, IRAs, and bank accounts. Partners may also name their preferred
trustee or executor.
Many cohabiting heterosexual couples believe that the law will recognize their relation-ship as a
Common-Law Marriage with the legal protections and financial benefits of marriage. However, only
Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah recognize common-law
marriage. In those states, a man and woman who live together and represent themselves as
married may be given common-law recognition. Once a common-law marriage has been
established, it must be dissolved through Divorce. Cohabiting couples who live in a state that
recognizes common-law marriage and do not wish to be married should execute a statement that
they are not married in order to avoid a later finding that a common-law marriage existed.
In the 1990s, a few courts began to recognize the familial ties of unmarried couples. In Braschi v.
Stahl Associates, 74 N.Y.2d 201, 543 N.E.2d 49, 544 N.Y.S.2d 784 (1989), New York State's
highest court found that a homosexual man and his deceased life partner had constituted a family
for purposes of New York City's rent control ordinance. The court found that in this case, the term
family should be construed broadly and should encompass contemporary realities, including
unmarried adult partners in a long-term, committed relationship that shows mutual sharing of the
mundane tasks of everyday life. Similarly, in Dunphy v. Gregor, 261 N.J. Super. 110, 617 A.2d 1248
(N.J. 1992), the court found that a woman who had witnessed the events leading to her fiancé's
death had standing to sue for the emotional damage she suffered as a result. Previously, suits such
as this (called bystander liability suits) were limited to those who were married or had blood ties to
the victim. However, the court in Dunphy found that the plaintiff met the requirement of "intimate
familial relationship," noting that the plaintiff and her fiancé had lived together for several years, that
there was a high degree of mutual dependence in their relationship, and that they contributed to and
shared a common life.
Since the 1980s, a growing number of states and municipalities have passed laws allowing
unmarried couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, to register as domestic partners. Some
cities have established a domestic partner registry, while others extend certain benefits to domestic
partners even if the city does not provide a registry. The state of California leads the nation in the
number of cities and counties that provide benefits to domestic partners, offer domestic partner
registries, or both. Cities providing domestic partner benefits include New York City, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia. The ordinances and statues in these cities allow couples to
register as domestic partners, and to dissolve their partnerships if they separate.
Two 1995 court decisions declared particular domestic partner ordinances invalid. In Lilly v. City of
Minneapolis, 527 N.W. 2d 107, the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a Minneapolis city
council resolution authorizing reimbursement to city employees for health care insurance costs for
same-sex domestic partners and for blood relatives not classified as dependents under state law.
The court held that the resolution was beyond the scope of the council's authority and lacked legal
force. Likewise, in City of Atlanta v. McKinney, 265 Ga. 161, 454 S.E.2d 517, the Supreme Court of
Georgia held that the city of Atlanta had exceeded its authority when it had extended employee
benefits to persons who did not qualify as dependents under state law.
Some same-sex cohabitants face other types of legal challenges. In Garcia v. Garcia, 60 P.3d 1174
(Utah Ct. App. 2002), the Utah Court of Appeals held that an ex-wife's involvement in a same-sex
relationship constituted cohabitation for the purpose of determining whether the exhusband's
Alimony payments should be terminated. Under Utah law, a court's order requiring alimony
payments from one spouse to the other terminates upon proof that the spouse receiving alimony is
cohabiting with another person. The ex-wife allegedly maintained a long-term relationship with
another woman, during which time she shared a common residency and had sexual contact. The
trial court held that the statute's definition of cohabitation applied only to relationships between
members of the opposite sex. The appeals court disagreed, holding that the term "sexual contact" in
the statute also included such contact between members of the same sex, and reversed the trial
court's decision.
Further readings
American Bar Association. 1994. Family Legal Guide. New York: Random House.
Dailey, Patricia A. 1994. "Domestic Partnerships in the Nineties." Delaware Lawyer (summer).
Duff, Johnette, and George G. Truitt. 1992. The Spousal Equivalent Handbook: A Legal and
Financial Guide to Living Together. New York: Penguin, NAL/Dutton.
Ihara, Toni, Robin Leonard, and Ralph Warner. 1994. The Living Together Kit. 7th ed. Berkeley,
Calif.: Nolo Press.
Richardson, David G. 1993. "Family Rights for Unmarried Couples." Kansas Journal of Law and
Public Policy (spring).
Samuels, M. Dee. 1995. "You Don't Have to Be Married to Be Legal." Compleat Lawyer (winter).
Wallman, Lester. 1994. Cupid, Couples, and Contracts: A Guide to Living Together, Prenuptial
Agreements, and Divorce. New York: MasterMedia.
Cross-references
Parent and Child.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights
reserved.
cohabitation
n. living together in the same residence, generally either as husband and wife or for an extended
period of time as if the parties were married. Cohabitation implies that the parties are having sexual
intercourse while living together, but the definition would not apply to a casual sexual encounter.
Legal tests have been filed to determine whether cohabitation would refer to same sex partners,
which is important to those involved since "cohabitation" is the basis of certain rights and privileges
under various laws, regulations and contracts. The findings of the courts vary on this question, but
the trend is to include long-standing homosexual relationships as cohabitation.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
cohabitation(Living together), noun abiding tooether, act of dwelling together, alliance, living
together in sexual intimacy, lodging together, lodging together as hussand and wife, occupying the
same domicile, residing tooether, rooming together
Associated concepts: cohabiting in a state of adultery, illicit cohabitation, lewd and lascivious
cohabitation
Foreign phrases: Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit.Not cohabitation but consent makes
the valid marriage.
cohabitation(Married state), noun act of living tooether as husband and wife, act of pairing, bond of
matriiony, conjugal bliss, conjugality, connubiality, coverture, domestication, legal relation of
spouses to each other, legal union of a man and a woman, marriage, married status, matrimony,
nuptial bond, nuptial tie, state of matrimony, union, vinculo matrimonii, wedded state, wedded status,
wedlock
Associated concepts: bigamous cohabitation, cohabiting in a state of adultery, matrimonial
cohabitation, polygamous cohabitation
Foreign phrases: Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit.Not cohabitation but consent makes
the marriage.
See also: marriage, matrimony
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
COHABITATION. Living together.
2. The law presumes that husband and wife cohabit, even after a voluntary separation has taken
place between them; but where there has been a divorce a mensa et thoro, or a sentence of
separation, the presumption then arises that they have obeyed the sentence or decree, and do not
live together.
3. A criminal cohabitation will not be presumed by the proof of a single act of criminal intercourse
between a man and woman not married. 10 Mass. R. 153.
4. When a woman is proved to cohabit with a man and to assume his name with his consent, he
will generally be responsible for her debts as if she had been his wife; 2 Esp. R. 637; 1 Campb. R.
245; this being presumptive evidence of marriage; B. N. P. 114; but this liability will continue only
while they live together, unless she is actually his were. 4 Campb. R. 215.
5. In civil actions for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife, after the husband and wife
have separated, the plaintiff will not in general be entitled to recover. 1 Esp. R. 16; S. C. 5 T. R. 357;
Peake's Cas. 7, 39; sed vide 6 East, 248; 4 Esp. 39.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier.
Published 1856.
No comments:
Post a Comment