Becker v. Becker, 2011 ND 107

Richard Varriano and Denise Varriano divorced in 2001; divorce judgment combined child support and spousal support at $4,000/month.
Child support portion decreased as each child reached 18; spousal support remained at $1,000/month for four more years after child support ended.
Judgment provided Denise would lose spousal support if she remarried or cohabited with a significant other.
February 2010: clerk issued arrears notice of $181,781.20 for child/spousal support unpaid amounts.
Richard opposed arrears, claiming Denise violated the divorce judgment by cohabiting; May 2010 motion sought termination of support obligations.
District court heard the matter, found Denise had not cohabited with a significant other, and denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Denise cohabit with a significant other?	Varriano argues Denise cohabited with a significant other.	Varriano contends no cohabitation occurred; Denise testified she did not cohabit and kept separate residences.	Not clearly erroneous; court affirmed Denise did not cohabit.
Whether the motion to terminate support was timely or appropriate relief	Varriano seeks retroactive termination/offset based on cohabitation occurring in 2001.	No explicit timeliness or independent-equity relief addressed below; motion framed as modification/remedy.	Court did not address timeliness or relief because cohabitation finding resolved the issue.

Baker v. Baker, 566 N.W.2d 806 (ND 1997) (factors for cohabitation determination; non-exclusive factors)
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 410 N.W.2d 508 (ND 1987) (equitable relief reserved for unusual circumstances when Rule 60(b) inadequate)
Marchus v. Marchus, 712 N.W.2d 636 (ND 2006) (motion to modify support; timing and retroactive effects discussed)
Nuveen v. Nuveen, 795 N.W.2d 308 (ND 2011) (standards for reviewing findings of fact; clear error standard)