And the husband is going to hold her to the letter of that, even though Patricia Craissati’s “cohabitation” is with a cellmate at the prison where she’s serving time for a DUI accident. A dissenting judge called it an “absurd result”. (Susan Spencer-Wendel, “Ex-wife’s alimony cut off because she has cellmate”, Palm Beach Post, Dec. 10).
2 Comments
I wonder why the husband didn’t argue instead that his ex-wife has no need for alimony since she is now a ward of the state?
It would be just as absurd if she maintained the benefit of $2000 per month piling up for her benefit, while she saved on food and rent in the mean time.
The intent of the divorce settlement was met as well. She was to be provided for a period of time unless her life circumstance changed such that support was no longer necessary. Seeing as she will be living in public housing for 9 years, her financial need has improved dramatically. The decision seems not just to meet the letter of the decree, but also the underlying intent.