Court Opinion

ID: 9709829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:55:40.753195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:51.888870
License: Public Domain

Hennessey, C.J.
(concurring). I concur, but I wish to emphasize that this case does not overrule the principles of Bell v. Bell, 393 Mass. 20 (1984). In Bell, we held that the parties were bound by the clear language of their separation agreement, which provided that alimony would cease if the wife cohabited with another man. Id. at 23. I have no doubt that, even in the absence of an agreement, the fact of such arrangement is an appropriate circumstance to be considered by the court in setting or modifying a support order. In this case, however, (1) under the terms of the agreement between the parties, the provision as to cohabitation did not survive the judgment of divorce, and (2) the judge found in substance that the wife’s arrangement with another man did not affect her need for support. The *630judge thus relied on a condition which is irrelevant to the need for support under G. L. c. 208, § 34. The principles of Bell are not affected.