## Facts

- Joseph Paul and Shannon Paul divorced and entered an agreement requiring Joseph to pay Shannon alimony until Shannon’s “cohabitation,” as defined by Delaware’s alimony statute (13 Del. C. § 1512(g)).
- After Shannon began a new romantic relationship with a boyfriend (Vance), Joseph hired a private investigator to conduct surveillance of Shannon’s home for roughly five months.
- The investigator observed the boyfriend’s car at Shannon’s home late at night and still present early the next morning on 25 of 37 observation days, supporting an inference of recurring overnight stays.
- The investigator also observed the boyfriend performing household-type activities at Shannon’s home, including retrieving the newspaper, taking out the trash, feeding the cat, watering plants, and opening the garage using a code.
- Additional observations and evidence indicated the boyfriend did yard work, had his own key or access to the home, and at one point showed a painter around the house.
- Joseph petitioned in the Delaware Family Court to terminate alimony, arguing Shannon’s relationship met the statutory definition of “cohabitation,” which includes “regularly residing” with another adult in a marriage-like relationship.
- Shannon testified she and her boyfriend were in an exclusive relationship and held themselves out socially as a couple, but he stayed at her home only about two to four nights per week.
- Shannon testified the boyfriend maintained his own separate house, did not keep clothing or personal items at her home, and that they did not live together.
- The boyfriend testified he kept his own residence to maintain independence and to preserve memories of his late wife.
- The Family Court denied the petition, finding Joseph had not shown Shannon and her boyfriend “regularly resided” together as required by § 1512(g), emphasizing that they maintained separate residences and that the evidence showed frequent visits rather than a shared residence.
- Joseph appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Under 13 Del. C. § 1512(g), what does “regularly residing” require for alimony-termination based on “cohabitation”?
2. Did the Family Court err in concluding that Shannon and her boyfriend were not “regularly residing” together where he spent multiple nights per week at her home and performed household activities but maintained a separate home?
3. Did the Family Court’s factual findings and credibility determinations lack record support such that reversal was warranted on appeal?

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s order denying Joseph’s petition to terminate alimony.
- The Court held the Family Court did not commit reversible error in its application of § 1512(g) to the evidence presented.
- The Court concluded the record supported the Family Court’s finding that Shannon and her boyfriend, despite an exclusive relationship and frequent overnight stays, did not “regularly reside” together within the statute’s meaning.
- The Court emphasized that the Family Court was entitled to weigh credibility and evidence about where each person actually lived and whether the boyfriend had made Shannon’s home a shared residence.
- Because Joseph did not meet his burden to prove statutory “cohabitation,” alimony did not terminate.

## Legal Principles

- Under 13 Del. C. § 1512(g), alimony termination for “cohabitation” requires proof that the recipient is “regularly residing” with another adult in a relationship comparable to marriage.
- “Regularly residing” requires more than an intimate relationship plus frequent overnight stays; it calls for evidence of a shared residence as a real living arrangement, not visits that remain secondary to a separate home.
- Evidence that a companion helps with chores, has access (such as a key or garage code), or stays over several nights per week may support an inference of closeness, but it does not necessarily establish that the companion resides there.
- Maintaining a separate residence, keeping personal belongings elsewhere, and credible testimony of intent to keep households separate are facts a trial court may treat as inconsistent with “regularly residing.”
- Appellate review gives substantial weight to the Family Court’s factual findings and credibility determinations; where the record supports those findings, an appellate court will not reweigh the evidence.

## Conclusion

Paul v. Paul holds that, for alimony to terminate based on “cohabitation” under 13 Del. C. § 1512(g), the payor must prove the recipient and a partner “regularly reside” together in a shared residential arrangement; an exclusive relationship with recurring overnight stays and household assistance, without proof that the partner has made the recipient’s home a shared residence rather than a place frequently visited, supports denial of termination and will be upheld when the Family Court’s findings are supported by the record.


Paul v. Paul, 60 A.3d 1080 (2012)