Scott v. Scott
368 P.3d 133
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Jillian (Wife) and Bradley Scott (Husband) divorced in 2006; Husband agreed to pay $6,000/month alimony for the marriage’s duration, with alimony terminating on Wife’s remarriage or cohabitation.
- From Oct 2008 to Apr 2011 Wife had a long-term, exclusive relationship with J.O.; they traveled frequently and often stayed at J.O.’s vacation homes.
- In Sep 2010 the couple planned to buy a house in Rancho Santa Fe, CA; J.O. purchased and closed on that house in Jan 2011, and Wife and J.O. moved into it together on Feb 17, 2011.
- The relationship ended abruptly around Apr 1, 2011; J.O. paid Wife $110,000 in a settlement after she moved out.
- Husband filed to terminate alimony in Oct 2011, alleging Wife had cohabited with J.O. beginning Feb 2011; the district court found cohabitation began Dec 22, 2010 and awarded Husband reimbursement of alimony paid since that date.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed that cohabitation occurred but held cohabitation began Feb 17, 2011 (the Rancho Santa Fe move), and remanded to recalculate Husband’s reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wife "cohabit" with J.O. under Utah law? | Wife: Their relationship, though intimate, did not create a common residency (no cohabitation). | Husband: Their long-term exclusive relationship culminating in moving in together satisfies cohabitation. | Court: Yes—cohabitation established (relationship akin to marriage and shared household). |
| When did cohabitation begin? | Wife: Vacations and increased time together before the move were temporary; no common residency before Feb 17, 2011. | Husband: Cohabitation began Dec 22, 2010 based on intensified living-together conduct. | Court: Began Feb 17, 2011 (date they moved into Rancho Santa Fe). |
| Must cohabitation be ongoing at time of termination proceeding (statutory interpretation)? | Wife: Statute uses present tense "is cohabitating," so cohabitation must be contemporaneous; a past/ended cohabitation cannot terminate alimony. | Husband: Statute allows termination upon establishment of cohabitation; proof of past cohabitation can terminate alimony retroactively to the start date. | Court: "Is" read in context permits termination once cohabitation is established even if relationship ended; termination is effective as of the cohabitation start date. |
| Effect on alimony judgment (retroactivity / remedy)? | Wife: If cohabitation had ended, alimony should not be terminated retroactively back to date alleged by Husband. | Husband: Court may retroactively terminate alimony to the date cohabitation began and recoup payments made after that date. | Court: Retroactive termination allowed; remanded to recalculate reimbursement using Feb 17, 2011 as start date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Myers, 266 P.3d 806 (Utah 2011) (defines cohabitation: common residency + relatively permanent sexual relationship akin to marriage)
- Haddow v. Haddow, 707 P.2d 669 (Utah 1985) (articulated residency/"principal domicile" component of cohabitation)
- Sigg v. Sigg, 905 P.2d 908 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (shared household indicia can establish cohabitation even where separate residences exist)
- Knuteson v. Knuteson, 619 P.2d 1387 (Utah 1980) (temporary, emergency living arrangement with brief duration did not constitute cohabitation)
- Levin v. Carlton-Levin, 318 P.3d 1177 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (focus on actual living arrangements rather than legal domicile in cohabitation analysis)
- Black v. Black, 199 P.3d 371 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (district courts have discretion to retroactively terminate alimony to the date cohabitation began)
- Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072 (Utah 1985) (describes principal purposes and policies underlying alimony)