Timothy A. Hughes v. Mariel Hughes
186 So. 3d 394
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Tim and Mariel Hughes divorced (married 1983); chancery court awarded Mariel $2,500/month periodic alimony in 2008 after finding Tim committed adultery.
- Tim moved in 2011 to terminate alimony, alleging Mariel was cohabiting or in a de facto marriage with Darrell Hill.
- Initial two-day trial in May 2013 was continued; Chancellor Bordis recused before completion; Chancellor Bradley heard additional testimony in March 2014 after reviewing prior trial recordings.
- Evidence: Mariel and Darrell had a ~4-year monogamous relationship, maintained separate residences and finances, spent nights together irregularly, traveled together, occasionally shared travel/meal expenses, exchanged gifts, and shared a cell-phone plan; no joint bank accounts or shared ongoing household expenses; Darrell did not keep personal effects or mail at Mariel’s home.
- Chancellor denied Tim’s petition to terminate alimony, finding no proven cohabitation or de facto marriage; trial court’s findings were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hughes) | Defendant's Argument (Mariel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mariel cohabited with Darrell such that alimony should terminate | Investigator surveillance + frequency of overnight stays and joint trips show regular cohabitation | They maintained separate homes/finances; overnight stays were occasional; no shared property or ongoing financial support | No cohabitation found; presumption of mutual support did not arise; chancellor’s factual finding affirmed |
| Whether Mariel’s relationship with Darrell constituted a de facto marriage (two theories) | Relationship was structured like a marriage (shared lifestyle, gifts, travel) and she avoided remarriage to keep alimony | No evidence she avoided marriage for financial reasons; no joint finances, no shared living arrangements or mutual support typical of de facto marriage | No de facto marriage: court rejected both (1) avoidance-of-remarriage theory and (2) living/financial-arrangement theory; findings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammonds v. Hammonds, 641 So. 2d 1211 (Miss. 1994) (cohabitation must involve financial mutual support to justify terminating alimony; moral judgment alone insufficient)
- Scharwath v. Scharwath, 702 So. 2d 1210 (Miss. 1997) (proof of cohabitation creates a rebuttable presumption of material change in circumstances due to mutual support)
- Coggins v. Coggins, 132 So. 3d 636 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (overnight stays alone do not necessarily establish cohabitation; chancellor’s factual findings entitled to deference)
- McMinn v. McMinn, 171 So. 3d 511 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (sexual relationship and regular overnight stays do not automatically forfeit alimony absent mutual support)
- Martin v. Martin, 751 So. 2d 1132 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (de facto marriage can be found where recipient avoids remarriage to continue alimony or where financial/living arrangements amount to a marital-like relationship)
- Pope v. Pope, 803 So. 2d 499 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (relationship and limited overnight visits with some expense-sharing did not rise to de facto marriage)
- Burrus v. Burrus, 962 So. 2d 618 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (examples of factors showing de facto marriage: keeping clothes, shared keys, access to accounts, in-kind and financial support)