Question: My wife and I divorced two years ago. We made an agreement, and I consented to her having custody of our children and to pay her alimony and child support.

My lawyer insisted that a provision be included in the agreement that her alimony would stop on her death, my death, her remarriage, or her cohabitation with an unrelated person in a relationship similar to marriage for 60 days. My monthly payments are not chickenfeed at $1,500, so when our children, ages 12 and 10, began talking about “Momma Jean”, I was all ears. “Momma Jean”, I learned, happens to be my wife’s female love interest.

I hired detectives who found that both “Momma Jean” and my wife lived in my wife’s home 27 nights in a row, and that “Momma Jean” would stay with her daughter the other nights because “Momma Jean” rented out her home. Based on everything we could find, they were living in my former home and “Momma Jean”, who had a key, came and went as she wanted. She bought groceries and even went to my children’s sporting events.

Despite this proof, my lawyer warned me that there might be legal issues because there can be no “marriage” between two women. So I am stymied at this point because I don’t want to spend a lot of money for nothing. At the same time, my children are confused about having “two mothers.” Any suggestions?

Answer: While your custody questions fall under “the best interests of the children” category, whether or not you can terminate your alimony will depend on how the court construes the agreement that you and your wife signed.

Under the generally defined definition, 'cohabitation' means living together in the same house like married persons, with each person in the relationship assuming some of the responsibilities. Generally, an ongoing relationship that appears to be permanent and includes what you have described, including efforts to raise your children, certainly smells like a “marriage-like” relationship.

As your lawyer points out, you must look to the law of your state of residence to determine if people of the same sex -- since they can’t marry -- can still meet the definition you placed in your agreement. And this leads to the question of how the courts of your state have historically interpreted the language of settlement agreements like yours where, as here, there are questions about what was intended by you and your wife when you entered into the agreement.

Had you used the word “male” rather than “person” in your agreement, it appears that you would have intended a relationship between a woman and man; however, since your agreement used the word “person,” you may well have intended to include both men and woman in the category of being a “cohabitant.” Here, your wife and “Momma Jean” shared a common residence, seem to have a romantic involvement, share some expenses and responsibilities, and apparently have done so for some time.

SoloFact: When you enter into property settlement and support agreements, it’s important to say and explain precisely what you mean rather than beat around the bush and wind up waiting for a judge to decide what you may have meant.