High court rules on alimony cases

Tuesday, April 14, 1998 | 9:07 a.m.

The court, in two cases from Las Vegas, ruled against ex-husbands who wanted to reduce or eliminate support when their ex-wives started living with other men.

"Rights to spousal support are not rescinded merely because the recipient spouse is cohabiting," said Justice Miriam Shearing, who wrote the majority opinion. The decision said there must be a financial test to determine whether there should be a change in support.

Richard and Marjorie Gilman were divorced in Las Vegas in 1990 after a 27-year marriage. As part of the divorce decree, Marjorie receives $1,500 a month.

Marjorie started living with Tom Westmoreland in Las Vegas, sharing expenses. They then moved to Massachusetts where Marjorie covered most of the expenses.

Westmoreland used his salary to make payments on his car and his home in Las Vegas.

The court upheld former Family Court Judge Terrance Marren, who ruled that Westmoreland hadn't significantly contributed to Marjorie's support and that "Nevada law contained no presumption that spousal support should terminate if the recipient cohabits with another person ..."

The court also rejected the appeal of Kenneth Callahan, divorced from Valerie Callahan in Las Vegas after eight years of marriage. She received $1,500 a month.

Valerie moved in with Chuck Maraden, and they moved to Reno. Callahan sought an end to the support, claiming Valerie and Maraden were living together as if they were married, except for the ceremony.

The court upheld the decision of Family Court Judge Gloria Sanchez, who declined to lower or end the support even though Valerie and Maraden were sharing living expenses. Valerie argued that her financial condition actually deteriorated during her cohabitation.

Chief Justice Charles Springer dissented in the Callahan case, saying Valerie and Maraden were acting in every way as if they were married except for exchanging wedding vows.

"It is my position that an alimony-receiving ex-spouse cannot 'have it both ways' - that is, cannot put himself in a position where he is entitled to receive palimony and property division ... and also be entitled to continue to receive alimony from a former spouse," Springer said.