Maybe, if the live-in situation is akin to marriage, and assuming the two of you did not negotiate for a non-modifiable alimony obligation to the contrary.
Cohabitation is a basis to terminate or suspend a spousal support obligation. As set forth in Smith v Smith,[1] the family court is to look to the totality of circumstances – that is, engage in fact-finding- to determine whether the payee and alleged paramour’s cohabitation is in a sustained relationship similar to marriage. The family court should look to the following factors: “(1) there must be an actual living together, that is, the man and woman must reside together in the same home or apartment; (2) such a living together must be of a sustained duration; and (3) the couple must share expenses with respect to financing the residence (e.g., rent or mortgage payments) and incidental daily expenses (e.g., groceries).”[2]
Additionally, in assessing the totality of the circumstances, the family court should consider: (1) whether defendant and her boyfriend intended to cohabitate, (2) whether they held themselves out as living together, (3) whether they assumed obligations generally arising from ceremonial marriage, (4) whether a sexual relationship existed, (5) whether marriage was contemplated, (5) whether they used one another’s addresses, (6) whether they kept joint accounts, (7) whether they were economically interdependent, and (8) whether defendant used her spousal support to subsidize the alleged cohabitation.[3] However, ‘because no one factor of a couple’s relationship is dispositive on the question of cohabitation, the fact-finder should consider the totality of the circumstances in each particular case.”[4]
[1] 278 Mich App 198; 748 NW2d 258 (2008).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.