In brief, went to court coupkle of years ago to vary spousal maint. Judge deemed no change as ex pleeded poverty.Ex recently rented out former marital home (which she got mortgage free in divorce)and bought £227k bungalow on a part time wage no less. Boyfriend spent days on end at former marital home since beginning of Jan and then has spent weeks on end at new place (car always parked outside). Consent Order states that if she remarry''s or cohabits for six months spousal ceases. I have recently stopped paying spousal for the afore mentioned reasons. She denies living with anyone and states that for spousal to cease a written agreement letter is required from both parties before thiscan happen. Is this the case? My ex has been economic with the truth before so no way in hell would she admit anything. Have been threatened with court action. OH NO quaking in my boots. Any advice greatfully received:angry:
I paid SM for a long time under a joint lives order.
In January my ex, unfortunately, died and I stress that for reasons I won''t go into I had no issues with her.
But the order specifically stated that the SM ended on her death and there was no doubt about that, so I didn''t have to go to Court, I just stopped paying ; the order itself said that the SM ended on her death.
But in your case there is a dispute about whether she is cohabiting. So I guess you will defend any enforcement action on the basis that the SM had ended. But if she can show she is not cohabiting then you could have a judgment against you for arrears.
I suggest you take legal advice. By the way I don''t agree with her about the letter. But if there is a dispute about whether she is cohabiting you will have to prove that this is the case.
Thanks LMM, I do have quite a number of photo''s at various times of the week showing his car at the address. I know there is no legal definition of cohabitation but i feel there is enough to go on but a judge may feel otherwise. She states she is not ''living'' with anyone but the order states ''cohabit'' which as I see it is open to interpretation from what I have picked up from other posts, agree or disagree?
I know as a fact that many women bitterly resent the fact that they are unable to marry without losing their maintenance. But in the majority of cases they are at least aware that re-marriage will have this effect. And even if the new husband goes under a bus on his honeymoon, the original order will not revive. It really is a case of for better or for worse.
There are, so I believe, some states in the USA where re-marriage does not automatically end alimony, and the expectation is that SM is for life and matters like retirement of the payer are looked upon are matters for a reduction rather than cancellation ( hillbilly country perhaps ?? ) Be that as it may, that is not the law here.
So then, ex wives receiving SM will often choose to cohabit, and generally do not put a placard outside their residence saying WE ARE COHABITING. In fact, some of them try to disguise it , for reasons which I can at least understand.
So to '' prove '' cohabitation is not always easy. But some of the factors are :
Whether the couple live under the same roof ;
Whether they have a sexual relationship ;
Whether there are any children of the union ;
The extent to which they share their finances ;
The extent to which they share social activities ;
What an outsider would think.
LLM and original poster, greatest sympathies to you both.
I do think it totally ridiculous that a person whether male or female can state that they are not co-habiting (bearing in mind the original order in this case) especially when the OP has pictures of the boyfriends car parked on the drive on numerous occasions and the collaborative lost argument of the ex wife that she needed to continue with a maintenence which she lost.
I do detest both woman and men that think that marriage is a meal ticket for life - btw LMM is God in my view having hung around this site for a considerably longer time than my posting would suggest.
The burden of proof in civil courts is far less honerous than in criminal courts (although in my view what the OP''s ex is doing is boarding upon criminal).
It is not for the original poster to prove his allegation (well he has pictures of the car on the drive overnight - what is the guy doing - checking the water temperature, holding her hand or what - friends of the opposite sex do not actually take advantage of someone on a regular basis - only take advantage of someone elses ex).
The legal saying which I heard a long time ago is that it is not up to the defendent to rebutt the allegation but for them to prove it, which basically means if an ex says you are having a guy overnight and are in a relationship and here is the evidence (what are they doing - playing tiddlywinks) but for the defendent to prove on what basis the allegation is wrong.
Burden of proof - not heresay is it when you have photographs of the relationship over a period of time (lets not get into what they may or may not be doing intimately as everyone has a right to privacy and family life).