Myers v. Myers, 2011 UT 65

Mr. Myers sued to terminate alimony to his ex-wife under Utah Code section 30-3-5(10) based on alleged cohabitation.
Trial court found Ms. Myers cohabited with MH, their foster son, residing together at Ms. Myers's parents' Provo home in 2007.
Ms. Myers stayed at the parents’ home, often on a couch, while MH. lived in an upstairs bedroom with other foster children.
The district court fact-finding included that Ms. Myers spent at least 80% of nights at her parents’ home and that she and MH were a couple in some social sense.
The district court inferred a sexual relationship from common residency and Ms. Myers’s night stays in Salt Lake City with MH; it terminated alimony accordingly.
The court of appeals reversed, holding cohabitation requires more than sexual contact and that the relationship did not resemble marriage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
How cohabitation is defined under the statute	Myers argues Haddow defines cohabitation as a marriage-like relationship based on common residence and intent.	Myers argues cohabitation is broader; common residency alone may not suffice if not marriage-like.	Cohabitation requires a marriage-like relationship; common residency and related factors must bear hallmarks of marriage.
Burden of proof for cohabitation under the amended statute	Ms. Myers bore burden to disprove sexual contact under Haddow’s approach.	The statute dispenses with burden-shifting rebuttal; Myers bears no burden to prove lack of sexual contact.	The burden rests on Myers to prove cohabitation by preponderance; no requirement to disprove sexual contact.
Deference to trial court findings on mixed questions of law and fact	Appellate court should defer to district court’s factual findings if supported by evidence.	Court of appeals properly corrected misapplied legal standards and reviewed embedded legal conclusions.	Appellate court correctly treated embedded legal conclusions, affirmed remand or ruling under proper standard; no deference to misapplied law.
Outcome under the specific facts	Evidence supported common residency and a sexual relationship, indicating cohabitation.	Even with overlap and possible sexual contact, relationship lacked hallmarks of marriage-like cohabitation.	Myers failed to establish cohabitation; alimony obligation remains terminated.

Haddow v. Haddow, 707 P.2d 669 (Utah 1985) (defines cohabitation; marriage-like relationship; clarifies factors beyond sexual contact)