What is classed as “continuous cohabitation”?

[testingtesting321]

So I know this might sound like a daft question, but legally, what is classed as continuous cohabitation?

In my divorce, it states the respondent is due to pay the petitioner a sum of money if one of the six conditions are met, one of which is continuous cohabitation for a period of six months.

If the respondent had a partner who stayed at the home, but officially had a place of their own, does that count as continuous cohabitation? Or is it only when the partner has “moved in” with no property of their own that they can stay in?

I would suggest it was very hard to prove unless the respondents home was also the new partners sole home. My mum has been spending 5-6 days per week at her partner's house for years but keeps her own place and goes there on Sundays...

I don’t think it matters whether the new partner has an alternative home. If they live in the respondents home that’s the material fact. Whether it can be conclusively evidenced is another issue.

Is this to do with spousal support? If so, I wouldn't risk losing it by moving a boyfriend in .

@StephenBelafonte no nothing to do with spousal support. It’s just agreed in the financial consent order that a further sum of money will be paid once a particular condition is met (youngest child turns 18, family home is sold, period of 6 months continuous habitation with parter, marriage, etc).

Yes agreed proving it would be difficult if the partner has their own property.

[quote testingtesting321]@StephenBelafonte no nothing to do with spousal support. It’s just agreed in the financial consent order that a further sum of money will be paid once a particular condition is met (youngest child turns 18, family home is sold, period of 6 months continuous habitation with parter, marriage, etc).

Yes agreed proving it would be difficult if the partner has their own property.[/quote]
I don’t think the ownership of a home is a defence against an accusation they lived elsewhere. Plenty of people don’t live in a home they own. This statement in itself wouldn’t prove they lived in that home if there is evidence the person was habitually living somewhere else. There are plenty of ways to get caught in that lie if it’s not the truth.

Simple to take pictures of cars regularly parked outside a house that it’s not their house.

How many photos would you need though ? Maybe car tracking but... I spend a couple of nights at my partner's house but I also spend more nights at my own home, and pay all my own bills there. Would you try to prove that I live with him?

@Otter71

How many photos would you need though ? Maybe car tracking but... I spend a couple of nights at my partner's house but I also spend more nights at my own home, and pay all my own bills there. Would you try to prove that I live with him?

No because you don’t.

If you did it would be stupid to lie about it, in a legal situation. There are ways to catch you in that lie and unless someone is absolutely sure the petitioner doesn’t have evidence, don’t do it.

All the petitioner needs to do is show the person was consistently residing at the address over a prolonged period. The car outside all night for a number of weeks over the course of many months is hard to ignore. Statements from neighbours, or members of the family.

It’s doable if someone is motivated enough and if it is true. It would be daft and counterproductive for someone to lie in legal proceedings. Especially if they can be caught.

Surely a slight danger of being arrested as a stalker if taking photographs outside a house nightly for months on end?