1 

Filed 8/13/14 Marriage of Steiding CA1/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

In re the Marriage of LISA and B. 

GARLAND STEIDING, JR.. 

LISA STEIDING, 

 Petitioner and Respondent, 

v. 

B. GARLAND STEIDING, JR., 

 Respondent and Appellant. 

 A139169 

 (Sonoma County 

 Super. Ct. No. SFL40257) 

 The Steiding’s lengthy marriage ended in legal separation in June 2009. A term of 

the judgment provided that appellant (Garland)1

 would pay respondent (Lisa) $1,800 per 

month in spousal support. The order further provided the support would end upon the 

death of either party, Lisa’s remarriage, her “cohabitation with a person of the opposite 

sex in the community residence,” or further order of the court. 

 In August 2011, Garland filed a motion contending his obligation to pay support 

terminated when Lisa commenced her cohabitation with Patrick Baird (Patrick) in the 

family home. The trial court found Garland failed to prove cohabitation had occurred. 

We affirm. 

 

1

 For simplicity and clarity, we refer to the parties by their given names. We intend no 

disrespect or undue familiarity. 
2 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

I. Pre-Trial 

 The parties were married in April 1986 and separated in February 2008. Their 

daughter was born in 1994. They also have an older son. 

 On November 27, 2007, Lisa filed a petition for legal separation. 

 On June 8, 2009, a stipulated judgment of legal separation was filed, incorporating 

the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA provides, in part, that Lisa’s 

spousal support of $1,800 per month would automatically terminate upon her 

“cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex in the community residence located on 

Calle Ranchero” in Petaluma. The MSA does not define “cohabitation.” 

 On August 29, 2011, Garland filed a motion to modify the June 8, 2009 spousal 

support order by terminating support based on his allegation that Lisa had been 

cohabiting with a man at the Calle Ranchero home. 

 On March 1, 2012, Garland filed a trial brief claiming Lisa’s cohabitation was 

“such that a presumption arises that she has a decreased need for support.” In a trial brief 

filed on April 24, 2012, he argued instead that the cohabitation constituted “the 

happening of the contingency,” terminating his obligation to provide support under 

Family Code section 4334.2

 

II. Trial 

 A. Opening Statements 

 At the outset of trial, Lisa’s counsel indicated he understood Garland’s position to 

be that the clause in the MSA terminating the obligation to provide spousal support had 

been triggered by Lisa’s cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex. He went on to 

describe cases that have construed the term “cohabitation,” and claimed the evidence 

would show the alleged cohabitation had not occurred.3

 

 

2

 All further statutory references are to the Family Code except as otherwise indicated. 3

 The parties both agreed the relevant issue at trial would be cohabitation. 
3 

 B. Lisa’s Testimony 

 Lisa testified that Garland moved out of the family home on Calle Ranchero Drive 

in Petaluma in February 2008. Thereafter, she had exclusive use of the home up until 

September 2011. The parties’ daughter continued to live with Lisa after the parties 

separated. Their adult son moved in with her in March 2011 after he returned from 

military service. 

 Lisa met Patrick in August 2009 at a retreat for people with cystic fibrosis. He 

was 32 years old at the time of trial. They began an exclusive romantic and sexual 

relationship in September 2009. The relationship was continuous up until trial. During 

their relationship, Patrick has not been employed and he has never owned a home. He is 

on disability and has had a lung transplant. 

 Beginning in September 2009, Patrick would stay at the Calle Ranchero home a 

couple of weekends a month. He lived in Sacramento with his grandmother. During 

2010, he would sometimes extend his stay an extra night or two. It is possible that he 

stayed with Lisa longer than a week at some point that year. The parties’ daughter would 

stay with Garland every other weekend, and Lisa would make the trip to Sacramento to 

stay with Patrick at his grandmother’s house. This visitation pattern remained consistent 

in 2011. At the most, Patrick spent five consecutive nights at Lisa’s home during that 

year. When he stayed with her, he would help buy groceries. 

 In March 2011, Patrick began driving a red Volkswagen Jetta. He would typically 

park in the driveway in front of Lisa’s garage. He kept a change of clothes and a 

toothbrush at her home. He stored the clothes in her bedroom and would bring whatever 

belongings he needed while he stayed at the house, including his computer, medications, 

deodorant, and shaver. He and Lisa slept in the same bed and he had access to all areas 

of the house. He had his own set of keys and could come and go from the house as he 

pleased, whether or not she was there. 
4 

 Patrick sometimes attended Lisa’s soccer league games. The two have taken 

vacations together to Tahoe and Reno. They spend the holidays together. After she 

moved to an apartment in September 2011, she gave Patrick a set of keys and he comes 

and goes from the apartment the same way he did at the Calle Ranchero home. He 

usually stays with her Thursday to Sunday. She has not made any commitments to him 

regarding the future of their relationship. She testified to the effect that she and Patrick 

do not comingle their financial resources. 

 C. Patrick’s Testimony 

 At the time of trial, Patrick was living in a shared rental house in Santa Rosa. He 

confirmed he would often park his Jetta overnight at the Calle Ranchero house. He has 

been on long-term disability since December 2007. He and Lisa have had an exclusive 

sexual relationship since September 2009. During 2010 and 2011, he would usually stay 

at her home from Thursdays through Sundays. There were occasions when he stayed 

there continuously for over a week. While there, he slept in her bed and had full use of 

the house. He had the keys and would use them to enter the home when she was at work. 

He would do chores while she was at work, such as laundry and washing the dishes. 

Sometimes he would buy groceries and walk her dog. 

 Patrick brought his clothes with him and kept a toothbrush at the house. He 

confirmed he attended Lisa’s soccer games, as well as her daughter’s sporting activities 

and back-to-school nights. When he was staying with Lisa, the three of them functioned 

like a “family.” He testified that he and Lisa have not made any future plans regarding 

their relationship. 

 D. Richard Hyde 

 Richard Hyde is a licensed private investigator. Garland hired him in April 2011 

to determine if anyone was cohabitating with Lisa. He conducted surveillance on the 

Calle Ranchero home on 15 different days, beginning May 6, 2011. Patrick’s Jetta was 

parked at the home on 11 out of the 15 days. Hyde concluded Patrick was “cohabiting” 
5 

with Lisa based on his understanding that people cohabitate when they live together more 

than 50 percent of the time. 

 E. Peter Whitney 

 Peter Whitney lives across the street from the parties’ home on Calle Ranchero. 

In 2010 and 2011, he noticed that a man was staying in the home with Lisa. He appeared 

to be there “pretty much all the time.” Whitney thought the man was renting out a room. 

During the week, he would often see the Jetta parked at her residence. 

 F. Garland’s Testimony 

 Garland testified he first met Patrick in late 2009 or early 2010. He began to 

suspect Patrick was living with Lisa because he often saw the two of them together. 

Sometimes he would come to the house and notice Patrick was present. On one occasion, 

he went into the house looking for Lisa and found Patrick sleeping in her bedroom. 

III. Post-Trial Proceedings 

 In his post-trial brief filed on June 4, 2012, Garland argued the evidence clearly 

established Lisa had cohabited with Patrick at the Calle Ranchero residence, triggering 

termination of her right to receive spousal support under the terms of the stipulated 

judgment of legal separation. He relied on section 4334, which provides, in part: “If a 

court orders spousal support for a contingent period of time, the obligation of the 

supporting party terminates on the happening of the contingency.” (§ 4334, subd. (a).) 

 Lisa argued in her closing brief that that the “contingent period of time” under 

section 4334 “does not exist” because there “is no language relating to time for 

cohabitation to occur.” But even if enforcement of the MSA’s provision were to be 

considered, she asserted no cohabitation had occurred. She claimed the facts shown at 

trial were significantly different from the facts stated in the cases Garland relied on. 

 In his reply brief, Garland relied on Cochran v. Cochran (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 

283, in which the appellate court held in a civil law case that cohabitation can exist even 

when the parties live together for only two to four days a week. 
6 

 On August 24, 2012, the trial court filed its decision denying the motion to 

terminate spousal support. The court found Lisa and Patrick had maintained a romantic 

and exclusive relationship since the fall of 2009. Shortly after they met, he would travel 

from Sacramento to Petaluma on an almost weekly basis, spending approximately three 

nights contiguous per week at the Calle Ranchero home. After moving from Sacramento 

to a new residence, he continued to spend approximately three nights per week with Lisa. 

Notwithstanding these facts, the court concluded this pattern of a relationship was 

insufficient to trigger the spousal support terminating condition. 

 The trial court first noted the term “cohabitation” is found in a number of statutes, 

including those concerning the presumption of parentage found in section 7540, the crime 

of domestic violence found in Penal Code section 273.5, and the presumptive decreased 

need for support on account of opposite-sex cohabitation found in section 4323, 

subdivision (a). The court observed “a common theme appears” in the caselaw 

construing these statutes, premised on the finding that the two persons were living 

together. In particular, the court noted the focus in section 4323 is on whether the 

cohabitation causes a decreased need of support for the supported spouse. The court 

concluded: “Here, based on the evidence presented at the trail, no evidence was presented 

that [Lisa’s] need for support is somehow lessened by her relationship with Patrick. Each 

maintained their own residence and there was no testimony that Patrick, other than 

sharing cost for food, contributed to [Lisa’s] living expenses while living in Calle 

Ranchero.” On this basis, the court concluded the spousal support terminating condition 

had not occurred. 

 On August 31, 2012, Garland filed a request for a statement of decision. 

 On February 27, 2013, the trial court filed its statement of decision. The 

document is essentially identical to the August 24, 2012 decision, except for a new 

paragraph opining that even if cohabitation had been found, the presumption of a 
7 

decreased need for support under section 4323 had been rebutted by evidence that Patrick 

maintained a separate residence and did not contribute to Lisa’s finances. 

 On March 11, 2013, Garland filed a motion for new trial or, in the alternative, a 

motion to vacate and set aside the decision and enter a new decision terminating Lisa’s 

right to receive spousal support. 

 On June 3, 2013, the trial court filed its order denying Garland’s motion. The 

order clarifies that the court “did not analyze the issue of any decreased need for support 

by [Lisa] which would have required an analysis of the [section 4320] factors. The 

parties had stipulated the only issue to be resolved at trial was that of whether [Lisa] had 

cohabitated with a person of the opposite sex at Calle Ranchero Drive.” 

 On June 27, 2013, Garland filed his notice of appeal from the February 27, 2013 

order. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review 

 “ ‘ “A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments 

and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, 

and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate 

practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.” 

[Citations.]’ ” (In re Marriage of Bower (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 893, 898 (Bower), italics 

omitted.) 

 Garland asserts the standard of review in this proceeding is de novo. “ ‘ “Marital 

settlement agreements incorporated into a dissolution judgment are construed under the 

statutory rules governing the interpretations of contracts generally.” ’ [Citation.] We 

conduct an independent review of the MSA that is the subject of the appeal. [Citations.] 

We construe the MSA under the rules governing the interpretation of contracts generally. 

[Citations.] [¶] As has often been restated: ‘ “The fundamental goal of contractual 

interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. [Citation.] If 
8 

contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs. [Citation.] On the other hand, ‘[i]f 

the terms of a promise are in any respect ambiguous or uncertain, it must be interpreted in 

the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee 

understood it.’ [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ ” (In re Marriage of Hibbard (2013) 212 

Cal.App.4th 1007, 1012-1013.) 

 As we discuss further below, the term “cohabitation” is ambiguous in that its 

meaning shifts depending on the legal context in which it is used. For example, it 

sometimes requires the existence of a romantic relationship, whereas in other contexts a 

platonic, roommate-type of relationship is sufficient. Thus, whether cohabitation 

occurred here presents a mixed question of law and fact that “requires a critical 

consideration, in a factual context, of legal principles and their underlying values.” 

(Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, 888.) 

Where the “pertinent inquiry requires application of experience with human affairs, the 

question is predominantly factual and its determination is reviewed under the substantialevidence test.” (Ibid.) Cohabitation is such an issue. (See In re Marriage of Manfer 

(2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 925, 930 [substantial evidence review applies to factual issue of 

the date of separation].) 

 “On review for substantial evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party and give that party the benefit of every reasonable 

inference. [Citation.] We accept all evidence favorable to the prevailing party as true 

and discard contrary evidence. [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 

Cal.App.4th 1139, 1151.) “We do not reweigh the evidence or reconsider credibility 

determinations. [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Dandona & Araluce (2001) 91 

Cal.App.4th 1120, 1126.) 
9 

II. Interpretations of “Cohabitation” 

 A. In General 

 As to the dictionary definition of “cohabitation,” the appellate court in People v. 

Siravo (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 555 (Siravo) observed: “The common thread in the 

definitions is living together. It may be readily concluded that a cohabitant is someone 

who lives together with another.” (Id. at p. 561.)4

 In the legal context, “[i]t may be 

deduced from the Legislature’s use of the word “ ‘cohabit’ ” (and its variants) and 

interpretive judicial decisions that cohabitation refers, simply, to people who live or dwell 

together. In some instances, when the Legislature intended to refer to something more 

than people living together, it has specified that the cohabitants must have a man-woman 

relationship, which the courts then interpreted as an intimate or ‘significant relationship.’ 

[Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 561-562.) It thus appears that the interpretation of what 

constitutes cohabitation is not static, but is influenced by the context in which the word is 

used. In the present case, the context is termination of an award of spousal support under 

section 4334. As that section does not specifically reference “cohabitation” as a 

condition for termination, we, like the court below, turn to relevant cases and statutes for 

guidance. 

 B. Cohabitation in Intimate Relationships 

 Section 4323, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in part: “Except as otherwise agreed to 

by the parties in writing, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of proof, 

of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party is cohabiting with a person 

of the opposite sex.” In deciding whether parties are cohabiting in a manner sufficient to 

trigger this presumption, courts consider the personal, financial, and residential aspects of 

 

4

 “The word ‘cohabitant’ has been used by the Legislature elsewhere in the codes. In the 

Domestic Violence Prevention Act, for example, ‘ “Cohabitant” means a person who 

regularly resides in the household.’ [Citation.] This same definition of a cohabitant--as a 

person who regularly resides in the household--appears in the Family Code. [Citation.] 

In regard to housing for senior citizens, ‘ “Cohabitant” refers to persons who live together 

as husband and wife.’ [Citation.]” (Siravo, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th 555 at p. 561.) 
10 

the parties’ relationship. Cohabitation has been construed to involve a committed 

personal relationship, which can be sexual or romantic, or a homemaker-companion 

relationship.5

 (In re Marriage of Thweatt (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 530, 535 (Thweatt); 

Bower, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 901.) Cohabitation also normally involves the 

sharing of significant finances or labor. (In re Marriage of Geraci (2006) 144 

Cal.App.4th 1278, 1298-1299 (Geraci).) 

 Garland claims he presented sufficient evidence at trial to establish cohabitation. 

For purposes of this appeal, we conclude Patrick’s part-time presence at the Calle 

Ranchero home, standing alone, is not determinative. “When the Legislature chose to use 

‘cohabiting’ it was selecting a word of particular legal significance that carries more 

meaning than two persons of the opposite sex living under the same roof.” (Thweatt, 

supra, 96 Cal.App.3d 530 at p. 534.) In Thweatt the appellate court found no 

cohabitation where the wife shared expenses with two male boarders and there was “no 

evidence of a sexual relationship, a romantic involvement, or even a homemakercompanion relationship between either of the men and wife.” (Id. at p. 535.) The court 

also concluded that “cohabitation,” as opposed to just “living with,” requires more of a 

showing than the supported spouse and the person of the opposite sex “merely sharing 

living accommodations.” (Id. at pp. 534-535.) 

 Along with an intimate relationship, evidence raising an inference of economic 

interdependence of some sort appears to be required. In many cases addressing 

cohabitation, the residential aspect of the relationship involves payment of rent. For 

example, in Geraci, supra, the appellate court found ample evidence of cohabitation 

where a supported spouse lived with her boyfriend, who provided her with a car and a 

 

5

 “The courts have, on numerous occasions, observed that ‘cohabitation’ does not imply 

the existence of a sexual relationship between cohabitants, even where the statute 

specifies that the cohabitants must be ‘husband and wife’ [citations], ‘married’ [citation], 

or ‘any person of the opposite sex’ [citation]. ‘ “Cohabitation means simply to live or 

dwell together in the same habitation; evidence of lack of sexual relations is irrelevant.” ’ 

[Citations.]” (Siravo, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th 555 at p. 561.) 
11 

credit card. She did not pay rent, but contributed domestic services to the household. 

She allegedly owed her boyfriend more than $30,000 in back rent and other debt, to be 

repaid when she was financially able to do so. (144 Cal.App.4th 1278 at p. 1299.) As 

the court in Geraci observed: “ ‘Cohabitation may reduce the need for spousal support 

because “sharing a household gives rise to economies of scale. [Citation.] Also, more 

importantly, the cohabitant’s income may be available to the obligee spouse.” 

[Citation.]’ ‘[T]he Legislature created the presumption . . . based on thinking that 

cohabitation . . . creates a change of circumstance so tied in with the payment of spousal 

support as to be significant enough by itself to require a re-examination of whether such 

need for support continues in such a way that it still should be charged to the prior 

spouse.’ ” (Id. at pp. 1298-1299, fns. omitted.) Here, it is undisputed that Patrick did not 

pay rent and did not provide any domestic services to Lisa in exchange for housing. 

 Garland contends that cohabitation was established because Patrick resided 

regularly at Calle Ranchero with Lisa for two years “in a long-term, substantial, stable, 

committed, romantic, exclusive relationship, ‘like a family.’ ” Claiming cohabiting 

parties do not need to live together on a full-time basis, he relies heavily on three 

domestic violence law cases: (1) People v. Ballard (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 311 [although 

defendant maintained his own separate apartment, the fact that the two were “ ‘together a 

lot’ ” and “ ‘lived together in one bed’ ” in a “significant relationship” was held sufficient 

to establish cohabitation. (Id. at pp. 314-315, 320.)]; (2) People v. Holifield (1988) 205 

Cal.App.3d 993 [“ ‘[C]ohabiting’ under [Penal Code] section 273.5 [inflicting corporal 

injury on a cohabitant] means an unrelated man and woman living together in a 

substantial relationship--one manifested, minimally, by permanence and sexual or 

amorous intimacy.” (Id. at p. 1000.)]; (3) People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323 

[“We conclude as a matter of law that for purposes of criminal liability under section 

273.5, a defendant may cohabit simultaneously with two or more people at different 

locations, during the same time frame, if he maintains substantial ongoing relationships 
12 

with each and lives with each for significant periods.” (Id. at p. 1335.)]. These cases are 

distinguishable in that they arise in the context of criminal law. 

 However, Garland correctly notes that when the appellate court in Cochran v. 

Cochran (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 283, analyzed the meaning of cohabitation, it relied upon 

the rationale in Moore, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th 1323 to support its conclusion that 

cohabitation does not require evidence that the parties lived together on a full-time basis.6

 

Based on that case, he claims “the Cochran definition of cohabitation” should apply here. 

We find the Cochran case to be distinguishable. 

 C. Analogy to Cohabitation in Palimony Cases 

 California requires cohabitation as a prerequisite to recovery on a palimony claim. 

(Taylor v. Fields (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 653, 660-665 [holding that cohabitation was a 

prerequisite to recovery under Marvin].) “Cohabitation is necessary not in and of itself, 

but rather, because from cohabitation flows the rendition of domestic services, which 

services amount to lawful consideration for a contract between the parties.” (Bergen v. 

Wood (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 854, 858, italics added.) “[I]f cohabitation were not a 

prerequisite to recovery, every dating relationship would have the potential for giving rise 

to such claims, a result no one favors,” (ibid.), because “recovery under Marvin ‘requires 

a showing of a stable and significant relationship arising out of cohabitation.’ ” 

(Cochran, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th 283, 291 (Cochran), quoting Bergen, supra, 14 

Cal.App.4th at 857, italics added.) 

 Requiring cohabitation as an element of a palimony action provides a measure of 

advance notice and warning to both parties to a relationship, and to their respective 

family members, that legal and financial consequences may result from that relationship. 

In that context, cohabitation requires the demonstrable act of setting up a household 

 

6

 In Moore, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th 1323, the appellate court reasoned that a defendant 

should not be able to immunize himself from criminal liability for injuring a cohabitant 

simply because he lived part-time somewhere else with another. (Id. at pp. 1333-1335.) 
13 

together. Thus, in contrast to an extramarital affair, even a long-term one, cohabitation 

announces to the ones most affected by the existence of the relationship, the innocent 

spouse and dependent children, that the defendant has entered into a relationship that may 

result in significant and long-term impairment of family assets. In the present case, there 

is little evidence that Lisa and Patrick set up a household together in the Calle Ranchero 

home. Nor does it appear that any financial consequences resulted from the relationship. 

 Garland contends that cohabitation can occur on a part-time basis without 

financial ties between the parties. While Cochran does stand for the proposition that 

cohabitation can occur in the absence of a full-time living arrangement, other factors 

were present to support the opinion’s ultimate conclusion. Specifically, the parties there 

“had shared a relationship for approximately 17 years. That relationship produced a son, 

whom they were raising together. They held themselves out to the world as husband and 

wife. Appellant legally changed her surname to respondent’s. They had jointly owned 

their home until respondent quitclaimed his interest as part of their settlement agreement. 

Appellant performed a variety of domestic chores for respondent, including raising their 

son and maintaining the house. Respondent kept clothes at the house, ‘spent family time 

there’ and ‘slept there on a regular basis.’ ” (Cochran, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at pp. 291-

292.) The appellate court concluded the facts of the relationship, including that the 

couple lived together two to four days a week both before and at the time they entered 

their Marvin agreement, were “sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” that they 

cohabitated under Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 660. (Id. at p. 293.) 

 In the present case, it is clear that many of the factors present in Cochran are 

absent. While Patrick did stay at the Calle Ranchero home on a regular basis and had a 

very close personal relationship with Lisa and her daughter, the parties did not have a 

child together. Nor did they hold themselves out as husband and wife. They also did not 

jointly own any property, nor did they share any of their respective financial resources. 

While there was some evidence that Patrick performed chores and purchased groceries 
14 

while he was at the home, there is no evidence that these acts were undertaken in 

exchange for housing. 

Cochran is also distinguishable in that it arose in the context of a Marvin claim. 

The appellate court noted its conclusions were consistent with the purpose of allowing 

parties to enter into Marvin agreements: “To require nothing short of full-time 

cohabitation before enforcing an agreement would defeat the reasonable expectations of 

persons who may clearly enjoy a significant and stable relationship arising from 

cohabitation, albeit less than a full-time living arrangement. For instance, it would 

exclude otherwise valid support agreements made by parties who, perhaps because their 

jobs are geographically far apart, maintain a part-time residence for one party, and also a 

second residence where at times they live jointly. Certainly the rationale of Marvin does 

not support such a result.” (Cochran, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 293.) We also note that 

the Cochran opinion arose in the context of a motion for summary judgment, with the 

appellate court concluding only that the evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of 

fact as to the cohabitation element of the moving party’s Marvin claim. (Id. at p. 291.) 

 In the present case, it is reasonable to assume the parties understood cohabitation 

would trigger termination of Garland’s obligation to pay spousal support not merely 

because Lisa maintained an intimate bond with another man, but because that new 

relationship, at a minimum, raised an inference that Lisa’s need for financial support had 

been affected in some way. Indeed, Garland himself initially argued that Lisa’s 

cohabitation had raised the presumption that she had a decreased need for support. Here, 

there was essentially no evidence that Lisa’s finances were affected in any manner by her 

relationship with Patrick, notwithstanding the fact that he regularly spent a significant 

amount of time in her home. Further, we cannot conclude the couple had set up a 

household together in the Calle Ranchero home as substantial evidence supports the 

conclusion that Patrick at all times maintained his own separate residence. In view of the 
15 

totality of the circumstances, we find substantial evidence supports the trial court’s 

finding that Lisa and Patrick’s relationship pattern did not amount to cohabitation. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 _________________________ 

 Dondero, J. 

We concur: 

_________________________ 

Margulies, Acting P.J. 

_________________________ 

Becton, J.*

 

*

 Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.