Collins v. Collins.730
2015 Ark. App. 525
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Joni and Mitchell Collins divorced in 2011; their property-settlement agreement (incorporated into the decree) provided that alimony terminates immediately upon Joni’s remarriage or cohabitation.
- Mitchell suspected Joni was living with her boyfriend, Mark Rogers, and hired a private investigator who surveilled Joni’s home in Oct–Dec 2013 and observed Rogers’ vehicle overnight on most checks.
- Evidence at the April 7, 2014 hearing: Joni and Rogers had an exclusive sexual relationship, slept in the same bed when he stayed, Rogers had a key since at least October 2013, and they averaged 2–3 nights/week together; they had not commingled finances or property.
- Rogers testified he stayed more frequently in Nov–Dec 2013 because his apartment was boxed up pending a move; he kept limited clothing/toiletries at Joni’s and dog-sat while she traveled.
- The trial court found the parties’ living arrangement constituted cohabitation and terminated alimony effective April 7, 2014 (date of hearing); Mitchell sought retroactive termination to the date cohabitation began.
Issues
| Issue | Collins (appellant) | Mitchell (cross-appellant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Joni’s relationship with Rogers constituted “cohabitation” under the agreement | Argued “cohabitation” requires shared finances/lease; her separate residences and no commingling mean no cohabitation | Argued evidence showed the couple lived together and thus triggered the termination clause | Court held “cohabitation” is unambiguous (living together/sexual relationship); facts supported finding of cohabitation, so termination was proper |
| Whether the termination clause was self-executing, making alimony terminate automatically as of the date cohabitation began | Argued termination should not be retroactive absent court declaration | Argued clause was self-executing and should operate from the date cohabitation began | Court held clause was not self-executing; trial court properly made termination effective as of the hearing date after evaluating evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rockefeller v. Rockefeller, 335 Ark. 145, 980 S.W.2d 255 (1998) (incorporated property-settlement agreements are treated as contracts and not subject to court modification)
- Surratt v. Surratt, 85 Ark. App. 267, 148 S.W.3d 761 (2004) (contract interpretation principles govern incorporated property-settlement agreements; ambiguity is initial question for trial court)