by James E. Holmes
Georgia Law provides that a person paying alimony to a former spouse may seek to modify the obligation if the former spouse is involved in “the voluntary cohabitation …with a third party in a meretricious relationship”. [O.C.G.A. §19-6-19(b)].
But, what does this mean?
An early interpretation of this statute – known as the “live-in lover law” came from the Georgia Supreme Court in 1982 in the case of Hathcock v. Hathcock, 249 Ga. 74 (1982). The Court stated that this law was meant to include “…those instances in which persons …dwell together continuously and openly in a relationship similar or akin to marriage (including either sexual intercourse or the sharing of expenses)…”. [Note: This case addresses persons of the opposite sex. Same-Sex couples were addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 SCt 2584 (2015)].
And a recent case from the Georgia Court of Appeals [Schaffeld v. Schaffeld, decided March 3, 2019, Appeals Case Number A18A1947, no cite available] addresses this Statute in a more current context. The facts were these:
- Two divorced persons spent “significant amounts of time together”, including entire weekends. Also, they spent holidays together and went on trips together.
- There was no set schedule as to when they would be together, varying a lot because of work commitments.
- Neither maintained personal possessions such as clothes and toothbrush at the other’s residence.
- Neither received mail at the other’s residence, and each’s voter registration is at his/her own address. And,
- Neither paid the other’s bills.
The Trial Court had held that “continuous cohabitation” did not mean every night; the Court of Appeals disagreed. The Appeals Court, referring to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, found that “continuous” means “without interruption”. The Court found no authority that for the purposes of modifying an alimony obligation that a meretricious relationship can be a sexual relationship without continuous cohabitation.
The Court referenced first the definition of “meretricious relationship” found in Black’s Law Dictionary and then cited the Hathcock case referenced earlier.
In short, these indefinite conclusions can be made as to what is and what is not a “meretricious relationship”:
- Just having sex is not
- Just living together without more may not be
- Living together without sex may not be
- Living together with sex probably is
- Living together without sex but sharing expenses probably is