Love v. Love

626 S.E.2d 56 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Miller (H) and Ann (W) married on June 3, 1962. In January 1990, W was granted a divorce on the ground of adultery. The final divorce order incorporated a separation agreement entered into voluntarily by the parties. The agreement addressed all of the major issues arising from the marriage, including, but not limited to, custody, visitation, spousal support, and the division of marital property. H would pay W $1,100 per month in alimony, an obligation which 'shall end . . . upon the Wife's remarriage or death, whichever occurs first.' In 1995, W petitioned the family court for a modification of the alimony agreement. Prior to a hearing on the matter, the parties agreed H's alimony obligation would increase by $600 per month, making the total monthly payment $1,700. W began dating Otis Goodwin. A year and a half later, W moved in with Goodwin. W pays him $200 per week for rent and her share of the utilities. Goodwin had also loaned W $8,000, which was repaid, and a partially outstanding business loan of $25,000. W is also a cardholder on Goodwin's American Express Account, although each pays his or her own portion of the credit card bill. Goodwin has authority to write checks on W's business's checking account. In 1997, Goodwin transferred to W a parcel of land worth approximately $40,000 for the consideration of '$5.00 love and affection.' Goodwin routinely attends holiday celebrations, and special occasions with W's family and W's grandchildren refer to him with terms of affection such as 'Grandpa O.' W and Goodwin openly admit the romantic nature of their relationship. They are not formally married, nor do they express plans of marrying in the future. H petitioned the court for further modification of the alimony agreement. H alleged W's amorous relationship and seven-year cohabitation with Goodwin constituted grounds for termination, or at least a substantial reduction, of his alimony obligation. H argued w's relationship was tantamount to marriage, warranting a termination of alimony as a significant change in circumstances under the common law of alimony. The court agreed and terminated alimony. W appealed.