## Facts

- Two post-divorce spousal-support modification appeals were consolidated, each brought by a former husband seeking termination or reduction of alimony based on the former wife’s cohabitation with another man.
- In one matter, the divorce decree required alimony for a fixed term and stated termination on the recipient’s death or remarriage, but did not mention cohabitation.
- After that decree, the recipient former wife began cohabiting with a man; the payor former husband moved to terminate or modify alimony, alleging a marriage-like relationship and a resulting change in circumstances.
- The district court denied modification, finding no material improvement in the recipient’s finances attributable to cohabitation.
- In the other matter, the divorce decree provided that spousal support would terminate on death or remarriage and allowed reconsideration upon cohabitation with an adult male who “significantly contributes” to the recipient’s support.
- After the decree, the recipient former wife cohabited with a man but continued paying most household and living expenses; the cohabitant did not materially contribute financially.
- The payor former husband moved to terminate alimony, arguing changed circumstances and that his payments effectively supported the cohabitant.
- The district court denied modification, finding the cohabitant did not “significantly contribute” to the recipient’s support.

## Issues

1. Whether a recipient’s post-divorce cohabitation, without remarriage, by itself constitutes a “changed circumstance” under NRS 125.150 warranting termination or modification of spousal support.
2. Whether a decree provision allowing reconsideration upon cohabitation with a person who “significantly contributes” to the recipient’s support permits termination when cohabitation exists but significant contribution is not shown.
3. Whether a marriage-like cohabitation relationship creates a presumption of reduced need sufficient to modify spousal support.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed both district court orders denying termination or modification of spousal support.
- Cohabitation alone does not establish the statutory “changed circumstances” required to modify alimony; it is relevant only insofar as it actually affects the recipient’s financial condition.
- Where a decree is silent on cohabitation, modification still requires proof that cohabitation materially reduced the recipient’s financial need or otherwise changed the parties’ financial circumstances.
- Where a decree expressly conditions reconsideration on a cohabitant’s significant financial contribution, the moving party must prove that contractual condition; absent such proof, termination is not warranted.

## Legal Principles

- Under NRS 125.150, alimony modification requires a material change in circumstances tied to the parties’ financial condition, including the recipient’s need and the payor’s ability to pay.
- The party seeking modification bears the burden of proving the material financial change.
- Cohabitation is not a per se ground for reducing or ending spousal support; it matters only to the extent it reduces the recipient’s expenses or otherwise changes the recipient’s economic need.
- Courts will not adopt an automatic presumption that cohabitation in a marriage-like relationship reduces need; economic arrangements among cohabitants vary and must be evaluated on the evidence.
- When a divorce decree includes a cohabitation-related condition for revisiting support, courts apply that condition as written and defer to supported factual findings about financial contribution.

## Conclusion

The court held that post-divorce cohabitation does not automatically terminate or reduce alimony; modification depends on proven, material financial effects of cohabitation and, where applicable, satisfaction of any decree-based requirement that the cohabitant significantly contribute to the recipient’s support.


Gilman v. Gilman, 956 P.2d 761 (Nev. 1998)