437 P.3d 454
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Craig Hosking and Erin Jo Chambers divorced in 2008; decree required Hosking to pay alimony to Chambers unless she remarried, died, or cohabited.
- Hosking suspected Chambers was cohabiting with a new boyfriend after seeing an obituary; he commissioned surveillance and filed a petition in 2012 to terminate alimony.
- Evidence at a two-day 2015 hearing included private investigator surveillance, documents showing joint financial activity (joint bank account, joint vehicle registrations, joint insurance policies, mortgage applications), and investigators’ observations of regular overnight stays and shared household activity.
- Chambers and her boyfriend disputed cohabitation, claiming he was primarily a Provo resident, only an occasional guest, and that financial transfers were loans; they admitted an intimate relationship and engagement.
- The district court found Hosking’s evidence and witnesses more credible, concluded Chambers and the boyfriend cohabited since at least September 2011, terminated future alimony, and ordered repayment of alimony received during the cohabitation period.
- Chambers also argued the trial court failed to resolve certain post-divorce personal property issues; the court had previously concluded in 2012 that most such issues were merged into the divorce decree and not open for re-litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether factual findings support legal conclusion of cohabitation | Chambers accepted the district court’s factual findings but argued those facts do not legally amount to cohabitation | Hosking argued the facts (shared residence, intimate relationship, shared household/finances) met the three hallmarks of cohabitation | Court affirmed: the unchallenged factual findings supported legal conclusion of cohabitation beginning by Sept. 2011 |
| Whether the district court failed to address outstanding personal property issues post-divorce | Chambers asserted the court refused to resolve substantial unresolved personal property claims and sought remand | Hosking and the court maintained the issues had been previously decided or merged into the decree and were not reopenable; Chambers did not timely appeal the 2012 order | Court held Chambers’s claim fails: the court had addressed the issues (or deemed them merged), Chambers did not appeal the 2012 order, and she failed to preserve/identify specific unresolved items |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Myers, 266 P.3d 806 (Utah 2011) (defines three hallmarks of cohabitation and treats ultimate cohabitation determination as question of law)
- Haddow v. Haddow, 707 P.2d 669 (Utah 1985) (distinguishes resident from guest; principal domicile and continuity required for shared residence)
- Scott v. Scott, 368 P.3d 133 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (clarifies meaning of “temporary” vs “brief” in residence/cohabitation context)
- Levin v. Carlton-Levin, 318 P.3d 1177 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (affirming cohabitation finding where observations were representative of longer trend)