Source: https://familylaw.typepad.com/virginiafamilylawappeals/cohabitation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 05:55:37+00:00

Document:
Code § 8.01-384, however, provides that "[f]ormal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court shall be unnecessary . . . . [I]t shall be sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take or his objections to the action of the court and his grounds therefor."
Accordingly, because appellant made known the action that he desired the trial court to take and the reasons therefor, the issue is preserved for appeal under Code § 8.01-384 despite the lack of a formal objection.
Rule 5A:18 provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” “Rule 5A:18 requires a litigant to make timely and specific objections, so that the trial court has ‘an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals.’” Brown v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 210, 217, 688 S.E.2d 185, 189 (2010) (quoting West v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 327, 337, 597 S.E.2d 274, 278 (2004)).
“Under settled principles, the ‘same argument must have been raised, with specificity, at trial before it can be considered on appeal.’” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 625, 637, 712 S.E.2d 751, 757 (2011) (quoting Correll v. Commonwealth, 42 Va. App. 311, 324, 591 S.E.2d 712, 719 (2004)). “‘Making one specific argument on an issue does not preserve a separate legal point on the same issue for review.’” Id. (quoting Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 760, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc)).
The couple also testified that they vacationed together and visit each other's families.
No evidence that he keeps personal items necessary for daily living, such as toiletries, there, when not spending the night.
Therefore, the evidence "does not establish that wife's house was the boyfriend's primary residence," nor that they "shared a common residence". Therefore, the ex-husband did not prove cohabitation "in a relationship analogous to marriage" and his motion to terminate alimony was properly denied.
Alimony can terminate when the payor proves the payee has habitually cohabited “in a relationship analogous to marriage” for a year, under Va. Code §20-109(A) and the identical language widely used in Separation Agreements, but only if, and when, the payor files a court case seeking termination, the Court of Appeals reiterates, reversing a trial court that had modified support retroactively to a date before the termination case was filed. Va. Code §20-112 clearly forbids any retroactive modification, the Court says.
The ex-husband argued that when he saw objectively verifiable clear and convincing evidence of the cohabitation, that evidence terminated the alimony under the terms of the Code and the Separation Agreement. But “The ‘clear and convincing’ burden is not met by convincing oneself, but by convincing a court”, Judge AtLee writes in Miller v. Green, unpublished (6/23/15).

References: § 8
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §20
 §20
 v.