Where a Probate & Family Court judge is calculating the alimony awarded to a divorced woman, took into account a pre-marriage 6-year period from 2005 to 2011 during which the parties lived together, the fact that the wife received alimony during that period from a previous spouse did not preclude the judge from finding that the couple had engaged in an economic marital partnership in 2005-2011. Affirmed.
"The husband argues that, as a matter of law, the wife could not have entered into an economic marital partnership with him from 2005 to 2011, because she was receiving alimony payments from a previous marriage during that period. He maintains that the word "marital" in the phrase 'economic marital partnership' imbues the phrase with a requirement of monogamy, and permits either an alimony relalationship with a former spouse or an economic martial partnership with a current partner, but not both. He contends that to permit otherwise would be to endorse 'financial infidelity,' 'finanical bigamy' or 'financial polyandry'.
"Our jurisprudence recognizes, however, that the receipt of alimony, without more does not place an individual in an economic marital partnership with a former spouse. . .
"There is no indication that, between 2005 and 2011, the wife and her former spouse shared a primary residence presented themselves to the public as husband and wife or planned their schedules and vacations together...The transfer of payments, itself, does not create a marriage-like relationship, and it does nothing to preclude the recipient from seeking out and entering into an economic marital partnership.
"Indeed, the Legislature expressly contemplated that an individual who receives alimony payment may enter a new romantic relationship, see G.L.c. 208, s49(a), (d), and the formation of a new economic marital partnership is not prohibited by the statute. Rather, if an alimony recipient cohabits, and forms a 'common household' with a new partner for a period of at least three months, a former spouse's obligation to pay alimony may be 'suspended, reduced or terminated.'...Where an individual who receives alimony enters an economic marital partnership, therefore, it is the alimony - not the economic marital partnership - which may give way,,,
"Here the former spouse's continued payment of alimony did not prevent the wife from becoming economically interdependent with the husband, nor did it diminish the extent to which the new pair functioned as a couple and invested in a shared future during the period from November 2005 to February 2012. It was these mutual actions on which the husband's obligation to pay alimony now rests, without regard to the burdens once borne by the former spouse.
"The judge was aware that the wife had received alimony from her former spouse, a fact that appears repeatedly throughout his findings. In accordance with G.L.c. 208, s49(d)(1)(vi), the judge was permitted to consider this and 'other relevant and materail factors.' Nothing in the record suggests that he neglected to do so...
"The husband contends that the evidence is insufficient to support a determination that the parties cohabited and entered an economic marital partnership. We do not agree."
