Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. Super. 552

Divorce judgment awarded permanent alimony to defendant; alimony could be modified upon changed circumstances.
Defendant began long-term cohabitation with William Stein in 1998; finances became intertwined through a shared residence and joint accounts.
Plaintiff filed August 2008 to terminate alimony due to cohabitation; trial focused on whether cohabitation yielded an economist benefit.
Evidence included expert financial analyses showing defendant received direct/indirect benefits and lifestyle enhancements from Stein.
Trial court terminated alimony retroactively to the emancipation date of the oldest child (Sept. 21, 2009) after noting substantial economic benefit; cross-appeals followed; a correction was issued to the effective date.
Court affirmed with a remand to correct the effective date; discussed laches and equitable considerations, and denied counsel fees on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does cohabitation justify termination of permanent alimony?	Reese argues cohabitation can terminate alimony when substantial economic benefit exists.	Weis contends termination requires remarriage or insufficient evidence of benefit.	Yes; substantial economic benefit from cohabitation can justify termination.
Did the trial court properly quantify or assess the economic benefit from cohabitation?	Plaintiff contends Stein’s contributions were not adequately measured, warranting partial reduction rather than termination.	Weis argues that the trial court’s qualitative and quantitative assessment supported termination.	Court appropriately found intertwined finances and lifestyle enhancements constituted a material economic benefit warranting termination.
Was laches or equitable estoppel properly inapplicable to bar termination?	Plaintiff waited to act for years but did not change position; estoppel should apply.	No reliance on plaintiff’s inaction; no prejudice to defendant.	Laches/equitable estoppel do not bar termination.
Is retroactive termination to the emancipation date appropriate?	Argument for earlier termination based on filing date; seeks to avoid overpayment.	Earlier date would prejudice defendant; emancipation date more fair.	Emancipation date adopted; remanded to reflect correct date September 21, 2009.

Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999) (defines cohabitation and related economic-benefit analysis in alimony decisions)
Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 155 (1983) (cohabitation as changed circumstances justifying modification or termination)
Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (alimony based on actual economic dependency; changed circumstances may end support)
Ozolins v. Ozolins, 308 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div. 1998) (burden on dependent spouse to address economic consequences of new relationship)
Crews v. Crews, 164 N.J. 11 (2000) (commentary on modification/termination of alimony when circumstances change)
Boardman v. Boardman, 314 N.J. Super. 340 (App. Div. 1998) (cohabitation as changed circumstance and assessment of household economics)
Garlinger v. Garlinger, 137 N.J. Super. 56 (App. Div. 1975) (cohabitation and economic-benefit analysis in alimony context)
Wertlake v. Wertlake, 137 N.J. Super. 476 (App. Div. 1975) (cohabitation and alimony modification principles)
Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (2005) (foundation of alimony awards on economic interdependence rather than marital status)