Bindas v. Bindas, 923 N.W.2d 803

Michael and Mari Bindas divorced in 2009; their marital termination agreement (incorporated into the judgment) required Michael to pay Mari $3,200/month until Mari turned 62, death, remarriage, or Feb 1, 2023.
The agreement did not mention termination of support for cohabitation.
In 2018 Michael moved to terminate spousal support under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24.1(3), alleging Mari had habitually cohabited with her boyfriend since 2014.
The district court found Mari had cohabited in a relationship analogous to marriage for over a year and terminated support under § 14-05-24.1(3); it denied Mari’s fee request.
On appeal the Supreme Court considered whether the statute’s "unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing" exception precluded termination where the parties’ written agreement (from 2009) was silent on cohabitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 14-05-24.1(3) required termination of spousal support where recipient allegedly cohabited for >1 year	Michael: statute mandates termination upon a court finding of habitual cohabitation >1 year	Mari: statute excludes written agreements; their 2009 agreement (incorporated into judgment) did not make cohabitation a terminating condition, so statute should not apply	Reversed: because the parties had a written agreement addressing support and it did not include cohabitation as a terminating condition, the statute’s "unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing" exception applied and termination was not required
Whether the district court erred denying attorney’s fees	Mari: fees appropriate under § 14-05-23 (divorce) or § 28-26-01(2) for frivolous claim	Michael: motion was not frivolous; Mari sought wrong statutory basis below	Affirmed as to § 28-26-01(2): district court did not abuse discretion denying frivolous-fees; Mari did not request fees under § 14-05-23 below (court may revisit fees on remand)

Klein v. Klein, 882 N.W.2d 296 (N.D. 2016) (held § 14-05-24.1(3) applies prospectively to cohabitation after Aug. 1, 2015)
Cermak v. Cermak, 569 N.W.2d 280 (N.D. 1997) (cohabitation alone cannot terminate support when not included as a condition in the decree)
Silbernagel v. Silbernagel, 800 N.W.2d 320 (N.D. 2011) (settlement agreements merged into judgment are enforced as final judgments)
Lillethun v. Tri-County Elec. Co-op., Inc., 152 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 1967) (the law in force when a contract is made forms part of the contract)