Smith v. Smith
1992 OK CIV APP 132, 849 P.2d 1097, 64 O.B.A.J. 1119 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oklahoma law, a support alimony recipient's voluntary cohabitation with a third party justifies modification of the alimony award only upon proof that the cohabitation has led to a substantial reduction in the recipient's economic need for that support.
Facts:
- The Husband and Wife divorced via an Agreed Decree of Divorce on April 2, 1990.
- The decree ordered the Husband to pay the Wife a total of $180,000 in support alimony, payable at $2,500 per month for six years.
- In September 1990, the Wife began cohabiting with a man who was unemployed and had no known income.
- The Wife used her own funds to pay her cohabitant's bills, buy his clothes, provide him with food, loan him money, pay for trips, and cover his credit card charges and gambling losses.
- The Wife's personal fixed monthly debts and regular expenses remained substantially the same as they were at the time of the divorce.
- The Wife's savings account balance decreased from approximately $37,921 to $17,399 between the time of the divorce and the court hearing.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 8, 1991, the Husband (Appellee) filed a Motion to Modify Decree of Divorce in the trial court, seeking to terminate support alimony.
- After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion in part, modifying the decree to reduce the Husband's monthly support alimony payments from $2,500 to $1,000.
- The Wife (Appellant) filed a Motion for a New Trial.
- The trial court denied the Wife's Motion for a New Trial.
- The Wife (Appellant) appealed the trial court's order denying her motion to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, with the Husband as Appellee.
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 support alimony recipient's cohabitation with a third party, where the recipient financially supports the cohabitant without receiving any financial contribution in return, constitute a substantial change of circumstances relating to the recipient's need for support that justifies a reduction in alimony payments?
Opinions:
Majority - Hansen, Vice-Chief Judge
No. A recipient spouse's cohabitation does not justify a reduction in alimony unless there is proof that the recipient's need for support has been substantially diminished. The purpose of the cohabitation statute is not to regulate morality but to adjust support maintenance based on economic need. The court adopts the economic rationale from Garlinger v. Garlinger, which permits modification only if the new partner is supporting the recipient spouse or if the alimony payments are being used to support the new partner. Here, the evidence showed the Wife's own need for support had not decreased; in fact, her financial resources were being depleted to support her cohabitant. There was no evidence that her cohabitation reduced her need for the $2,500 per month in alimony, so the trial court's decision to reduce it was against the clear weight of the evidence.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the 'economic consequences' test from Garlinger into Oklahoma law for modifying alimony based on cohabitation. It clarifies that the mere fact of cohabitation is insufficient; the party seeking modification must prove a tangible economic benefit to the recipient spouse that reduces their need for support. This holding shifts the legal focus from the morality of the relationship to a purely financial analysis, establishing a higher evidentiary burden for modifying alimony in such cases. The precedent protects alimony recipients from having their support reduced simply for entering a new relationship that does not improve their financial standing.
