## Facts

- Nancy Mennen and John Mennen divorced, and their marital settlement agreement was incorporated into the judgment of divorce.
- The agreement required John to pay Nancy $5,500 per month in permanent alimony (with annual CPI-based increases) and to maintain related support obligations, including health insurance and other agreed coverage and security for the obligation.
- The agreement provided that alimony would end upon either party’s death or Nancy’s remarriage, and addressed cohabitation by stating that if Nancy cohabited with an unrelated person in a relationship “tantamount to marriage,” John’s alimony obligation could be revisited consistent with Gayet v. Gayet and later cases.
- Years later, John claimed Nancy was cohabiting with a man identified as J.K. in a marriage-like arrangement and sought additional discovery from Nancy to support an application to revisit or terminate alimony.
- John submitted an investigator’s report stating that during thirty-two surveillance checks over roughly four and a half months, J.K. was observed at Nancy’s home about eighty-eight percent of the time, including early mornings, late evenings, and overnight hours on weekdays, weekends, and holidays.
- John also cited Facebook photos showing Nancy and J.K. attending events together as proof they presented themselves publicly as a couple.
- John further asserted there were address and credit-related connections suggesting a shared life, including claims that J.K. used Nancy’s address on certain occasions and that there were limited credit-card-related ties.
- Nancy opposed the motion with certifications explaining that J.K. had lost housing and was living with his brother about forty-five minutes away, and that J.K. sometimes stayed overnight with Nancy for convenience when working nearby.
- Nancy presented information showing J.K. filed for bankruptcy and listed no co-debtors, supporting her claim that their finances were separate.
- Nancy also showed there was no proof of joint assets or meaningful financial interdependence (no joint bank accounts, no jointly titled property), and argued the Facebook material was minimal over time; J.K. appeared in only five photos among many pages of pictures posted across several years.
- The Family Part denied John’s motion to compel further discovery, finding he had not made a prima facie showing of cohabitation sufficient to justify expanded discovery into Nancy’s personal and financial affairs. John appealed.

## Issues

1. Did John make a prima facie showing that Nancy was cohabiting with J.K. in a relationship tantamount to marriage such that the court should compel additional post-judgment discovery related to alimony modification or termination?

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order denying John’s motion to compel additional discovery.
- The court agreed that John did not present competent proofs establishing a prima facie case of cohabitation under the parties’ agreement and New Jersey law.
- Because the threshold showing was not met, the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing broad, intrusive discovery into Nancy’s private relationship and finances.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking to modify or terminate alimony based on alleged cohabitation must first make a prima facie showing of cohabitation before obtaining extensive discovery into the supported spouse’s personal and financial life.
- For alimony purposes, cohabitation requires more than dating, frequent companionship, or occasional overnight stays; the focus is whether the relationship is marriage-like, including indicia such as shared living arrangements and financial interdependence.
- Surveillance or social-media evidence showing regular contact may be relevant, but without stronger proof of a shared household and economic partnership it may be insufficient to warrant compelled discovery.
- Trial courts have discretion to manage post-judgment discovery and may deny requests that would invade privacy when the moving party’s evidence does not meet the required threshold.
- Appellate review of discovery rulings in family matters is deferential; the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division left the existing alimony arrangement in place and upheld the denial of further discovery because John’s materials—surveillance observations and limited social-media content, without reliable evidence of shared finances or a true joint household—did not establish a prima facie case that Nancy and J.K. were cohabiting in a relationship tantamount to marriage.


Mennen v. Mennen, 2019 WL 1468745 (2019)