Cermak v. Cermak
1997 N.D. LEXIS 230, 569 N.W.2d 280, 1997 ND 187 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spousal support recipient's unmarried cohabitation with another person does not constitute a 'remarriage' and is, by itself, insufficient to terminate a permanent spousal support obligation under a divorce decree that specifies termination only upon death or remarriage.
Facts:
- Duane E. Cermak and Loretta R. Cermak married in June 1964 and divorced in January 1995.
- The divorce judgment ordered Duane to pay Loretta permanent spousal support of $600 per month.
- The judgment stated that the support obligation would cease upon Loretta's death or remarriage.
- During the original divorce proceedings, Duane requested a clause that would terminate support upon Loretta's cohabitation, but the court declined to include it.
- In mid-1995, Loretta sold property she received in the divorce and began living with another man.
- Loretta has lived openly with this man since 1995 but they have not legally married.
Procedural Posture:
- The Burleigh County District Court granted Duane Cermak a divorce from Loretta Cermak and ordered Duane to pay permanent spousal support in an Amended Judgment.
- The Amended Judgment was previously affirmed on appeal by the North Dakota Supreme Court.
- In August 1996, Duane filed a motion in the Burleigh County District Court to reduce or terminate his spousal support obligation.
- Loretta filed a cross-motion asking the court to deny Duane's motion and award her attorney's fees.
- The district court issued an Order denying both motions.
- Duane Cermak appealed the district court's Order to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a spousal support recipient's cohabitation with another person constitute 'remarriage' sufficient to automatically terminate the payor's support obligation under a divorce decree that only specifies 'death or remarriage' as terminating events?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Vande Walle
No. A recipient spouse's unmarried cohabitation is not the equivalent of remarriage and is insufficient, on its own, to terminate a permanent spousal support obligation. North Dakota statutorily abrogated common-law marriage, and treating cohabitation as a de facto marriage would contravene this unambiguous state law. The primary rationale for terminating support upon remarriage is that the new spouse assumes a legal obligation of support. In a cohabiting relationship, any financial support provided is voluntary and comes with no continuing legal obligation. Terminating legally-mandated support in favor of such an uncertain, non-obligatory arrangement would be improper, as it could leave the recipient spouse without any means of support if the relationship ends. The court adopts the modern view that cohabitation cannot be the sole basis for termination of spousal support unless it is explicitly included as a condition in the divorce decree.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a clear legal distinction between the formal status of marriage and the informal arrangement of cohabitation for the purposes of spousal support. It establishes that North Dakota courts will not judicially expand the definition of 'remarriage' to include cohabitation, thereby upholding the legislature's abrogation of common-law marriage. The ruling places the burden on the payor spouse to explicitly negotiate for and include a 'cohabitation clause' in the divorce decree if they wish for support to terminate on that basis. This protects the recipient spouse from losing guaranteed support in exchange for an unenforceable and potentially temporary financial arrangement.
