## Facts

- Husband and Wife married in 1962 and divorced in 1990 on the ground of Husband’s adultery.
- The divorce decree incorporated a separation agreement requiring Husband to pay Wife $1,100 per month in alimony, stating alimony “shall end” upon Wife’s remarriage or death.
- The agreement provided that, except for property-division terms, its provisions would be adopted as a court order and “enforceable and modifiable as such.”
- In 1995, the parties agreed to increase alimony to $1,700 per month.
- Wife began dating Otis Goodwin in 1995 and later moved into his home, where they lived together long term.
- Goodwin testified Wife paid him $200 per week for rent and utilities; he also loaned Wife money (including a partially repaid $25,000 business loan) and conveyed to her a Surfside parcel valued at about $40,000 for nominal consideration.
- Wife used Goodwin’s credit card as a cardholder; Goodwin had authority to write checks on Wife’s business account.
- The couple presented socially as a committed pair, participated in family events, and Wife’s grandchildren called Goodwin “Grandpa O”; both acknowledged a romantic relationship and denied plans to marry.
- In 2003, Husband sought termination of alimony, alleging Wife’s cohabitation and related financial arrangements were tantamount to remarriage and constituted a substantial change in circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether the family court had authority to terminate alimony when the incorporated agreement stated alimony would end upon Wife’s remarriage or death, and Wife had not formally remarried.
2. Whether Wife’s long-term cohabitation and financially connected relationship constituted a substantial change in circumstances justifying termination of alimony.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s order terminating alimony.
- Because the support provisions (unlike property division) were incorporated as modifiable court-ordered terms, the family court retained continuing jurisdiction to modify, including to terminate, upon a substantial change in circumstances.
- The “remarriage or death” language was treated as identifying automatic termination events, not exclusive limits on the court’s authority to terminate upon changed circumstances.
- The evidence supported finding a marriage-like, financially interdependent cohabitation that materially altered Wife’s needs and warranted termination rather than a reduction.

## Legal Principles

- When a separation agreement’s support provisions are incorporated into a divorce decree as court-ordered and expressly modifiable (excluding property division), the family court may later increase, decrease, or terminate alimony upon a material or substantial change in circumstances.
- Contractual language specifying events that automatically end alimony (such as remarriage or death) does not bar termination on other grounds where the alimony obligation remains modifiable by court order.
- Long-term cohabitation involving shared residence, stable domestic arrangements, financial interdependence, and social presentation as a couple may constitute a substantial change in circumstances effectively equivalent to remarriage, supporting termination of alimony when it materially reduces the supported spouse’s need.

## Conclusion

The court upheld termination of alimony, holding that the incorporated, modifiable support terms remained subject to judicial modification and that Wife’s sustained cohabitation with significant financial and domestic integration constituted a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to end Husband’s alimony obligation.


Love v. Love, 626 S.E.2d 56 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006)