the amount of time spent together the nature of the activities engaged in the interlacing ship of personal affairs including finances whether they vacation and whether they holiday together the dinner i was focusing on due to the nature of the activities in the interrelationship of personal affairs bullshit when it comes to the nature that divvies engaged in there was testimony that they spent considerable time together including most of the holidays during their almost three year relationship they spent most christmases testimony not to be credible regarding the fact at the very least there was testimony that he spent the night at her house twice a week this court in miller has stated that in order to years and the more sparse facts in terms of their relationship can we find that this is a defacto marriage and if i could please into the air and i don't often gauge m pointed out that there was no such evidence although as is the gulf membership and that wasn't enough to rise to the level of commingling of assets and relationship of personal affairs however in this case we had to bank accounts that the couple  shared they started a joint account in march of two thousand and fifteen and they started the savings account a couple months later in which christopher dial was the trustee and margarita moore was the beneficiary they stated that the purpose of this account was to courtney comes to the interrelationship of personal fears is whether the couple looked to each other for financial support our district has found that need is not an appropriate fact it factor to consider therefore whether the new partner actually but there is also evidence that he would transfer the money into their joint account from the savings account you take that i have he testified that the purpose was whenever she needed the money she would simply ask him and he would testify the funds but regardless he was mingling funds in order to support a shared lifestyle and that's where the courts when they can look to be in a relationship of personal affairs and especially  the statements made in the miller court it's more of whether there was a partnership approach to the use of preservation of funds that was a statement made by this court in the lower case but not necessarily whether or not he assisted her in you what do we have here that looks like we have testimony from christopher dial up that he did not purchased groceries that he would make dinners from our freedom or and i believe her family and that he at the very no your honor there there is also additional testimony that they went on a vacation together to new orleans in which on his credit card he purchased the flight in the hotel room there was testimony that he received reimbursement from that but death it's equally is unfair to have them pay when their ex's cohabitation with another person on a resident continuing contra basis with marriage there's the formal ceremony there's the there are formal marriage license there's no investigation as to whether or not that marriage is a real commitment or not here there is a formal acknowledgement there's a formal acknowledgement that that relationship that that intimidating relationship became is irrelevant when it comes to cohabitation because this court has pointed out that we're now living under section five ten am in a modification proceeding where we need is relevant we're looking at five ten fifteen where we're really just  testified that they were each july two thousand and sixteen the trial or even questioned her about the circumstances surrounding the engagement and she testified to the trial court that she was first in each july two thousand and sixteen she didn't wa the proposal the current status of their relationship at the time of trial or even months after their initial engagement is not relevant according to the statute the obligation to pay maintenance  you know there could be someone that does more than the other person maybe in this case margarito more was the one that was financially supporting the relationship but in this case there definitely is testimony that they had a marriage like the circumstances so i would agree with the court that perhaps ms moore was not a fantastic witness but i don't believe that that enough itself would be something that would allow this court to overturn judge flights reasoning or to say that her findings were against  he didn't make findings of fact and so far as what he thought all the facts were correct you just read this nebulous the statement i don't believe but that doesn't tell me a number of things but now it's out again so was there anything in the record whenever he made her she made her degree of the bush funny really to credibility that she actually  significantly more have more gravitas and in the case before this court i don't see that there is any basis to overturn the trial court's decision her decision was not against the manifest way to get events who would be in a better position to determine the that virtually every bit of testimony provided by ms moore in this case was uncontroverted it's a very important point because in all of these other cases that this court has decided relied upon you have something else you have a pay your spouse who perhaps had a private investigator or had a neighbor who would come to testify that someone's car was in the driveway i mean once a week in and i face book post where they of such a great family you have none of that here these are the most people that i have seen because they have little to no relationship so i i'm not a position to do that except to say that she received all the money from her divorce settlement it was no money was contributed by mr tyler it was one hundred percent ms morris money so perhaps she was concerned  married couples had different types of relationships in this case mark or even more decided to have her partner her boyfriend at the time help her in creating this savings account so that she can hopefully for help and for support which is what she was doing here we can look into the minds of these two and really see if there was any other purpose we do know that the court found it was odd and equally found it odd that  same month that she filed her initial petitions in this case that she would drew approximately twenty three thousand dollars from that account and it disappeared there's you know there's a lot of facts here in this case and we can't go into the minds of  couple to determine what that means but what we do know is that there was a trustee type relationship where he was helping her and remember he works at a bank she works at a bank so maybe he's a little bit more of the frugal partner in the relationship then whenever that there's been a demonstrated deeper level of commitment and permanence this is what this court was looking for in the work and here we have a couple with the relationship of these close to three years they shared bank accounts they  significant time together anyhow with ease most of their holidays they had vacations together they could dinners to get there they went on vacations together and they were engaged which is according to black's law dictionary it's an intent to be married they had to the level of cohabitation or super with period of time does there have to be this intended permanence you mention that they would gauged we attract earlier about the fact that the engagement was broken off several times at the time of the hearing there was no intention to be married that you indicated that even if they were engaged period at all for the first time they were in big step was enough and i don't see what authority there is for the at where do we draw the line you have to use all of these other factors but it seems to me i can just look at the day that they got engaged in that and they got engaged so this is the factor you have to look at the totality of the circumstances even s there was the time spent together and the holidays and vacations so it's more of a timeline of when the call has to perhaps would have began so all of that list says before the hearing what if we don't look at the situation on the hearing date well according to the remarriage of the tool and i believe the statute speaks to itself it doesn't matter what the current status continue again with the current this isn't a relationship that matters whether or not  is currently occurring right now or it has at some point in the past there's a case that actually was pretty fairly recent that he got in the third district which i know is not the second just stretched out where the relationship had ended before the time of the trial but they have stated again in that court that it doesn't matter it matters that the cohabitation that had occurred at some time in the past and it's the same kind of facts as in remarriage a tool where i believe in tool she showed up to trial and i