In re Knoll

• Decision Date: 19 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. 114,908,114,908
• Citation: 52 Kan.App.2d 930,381 P.3d 490
• Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of Melissa L. Knoll, Appellee, and Dean E. Knoll, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

52 Kan.App.2d 930

381 P.3d 490

In the Matter of the Marriage of Melissa L. Knoll, Appellee, and Dean E. Knoll, Appellant.

No. 114,908

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Opinion filed August 19, 2016.

Stephen M. Turley, of Cleary, Wagle & West, of Wichita, for appellant.

Alan C. Goering, of Goering and Slinkard, of Medicine Lodge, for appellee.

Before Malone, C.J., Green and Gardner, JJ.

Green, J.:

This litigation arises out of a property separation agreement for the termination of spousal maintenance upon the cohabitation of the petitioner. The respondent, Dean E. Knoll, brought an action to end his spousal maintenance to the petitioner, Melissa L. Knoll. The trial court determined that Melissa's cohabitation with her boyfriend, Trevor Mallet, commenced in May 2015. The trial court, however, determined that Dean's maintenance obligation would not terminate until October 1, 2015. On appeal, Dean contends that the trial court erred when it failed to terminate his maintenance obligation in May 2015. We agree. On the other hand, Melissa cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by completely terminating Dean's maintenance obligation. We disagree. In addition, Melissa contends that the trial court erred by not awarding her attorney fees. We disagree. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.

On April 10, 2014, after over 15 years of marriage, Melissa and Dean divorced. According to their property settlement agreement, which was incorporated into their divorce decree, Dean had to pay Melissa $1,238 per month in maintenance beginning on May 1, 2014, for a total of 5 years. Nevertheless, the agreement further stated that “[s]pousal maintenance shall terminate upon the death of either party or the remarriage or cohabitation of [Melissa].” The term cohabitation was not specifically defined within the property settlement agreement.

On May 21, 2015, Dean moved to terminate maintenance obligation. In his motion to terminate maintenance, Dean argued that Melissa was now cohabitating with Trevor.

The trial court held a hearing on Dean's motion on July 2, 2015. At the hearing, Dean testified that he learned at a May 2015 family therapy session with their minor child that Melissa and Trevor had moved in together. According to Dean, Melissa told the therapist that since moving in together with Trevor, she considered herself and Trevor as being part of “a blended family.”

Melissa testified that she had been splitting her time evenly between her residence with Trevor in Andover, Kansas, and her mother's house in Medicine Lodge, Kansas, for the past 2 months. Apparently, Melissa and Dean used to rent the Medicine Lodge house from her mother before their divorce. Melissa explained that she had intended to move all her property from the Medicine Lodge house to her Andover residence with Trevor but had not done so because of her father's recent death and her mother's recent medical issues. Melissa further explained that the reason she had been splitting her time evenly between Medicine Lodge and Andover was because of her parents' recent medical issues. Melissa also testified that Dean understood that she would be entering pharmacy school when they finalized their property separation agreement and that she and Trevor were both students on a limited income.

In regards to her living arrangements with Trevor, Melissa testified that she and Trevor had no joint bank accounts, credit cards, or debt. Melissa further testified that she and Trevor would split the groceries but that she would pay for all of her child's expenses. Melissa testified that she intended to take care of Trevor's minor children when he could not. Melissa also had three exhibits entered into evidence. Two of the exhibits were roommate agreements she had with Trevor. Outside of the addresses and total amount of rent, the substance of both roommate agreements were identical. Under the roommate agreements, Melissa and Trevor agreed to split rent, utilities, and “cleaning and other household chores” evenly. The other exhibit admitted into evidence contained photocopies of checks Melissa had made out to Trevor for rent and utilities.

On cross-examination, Melissa conceded that she and Trevor had been in a romantic relationship since February 2015, and they had moved in together in May 2015. Melissa admitted that she is currently able to live where she does because she is splitting living expenses with Trevor.

On October 7, 2015, the trial court ordered the termination of Dean's maintenance obligation based on the following evidence: (1) that Melissa and Trevor have been in a romantic relationship since February 2015; (2) that Melissa and Trevor decided to move in together after becoming romantically involved; (3) that Melissa and Trevor “moved into the same residence, which appears to be the mutual, sole residence of both parties”; (4) that Melissa and Trevor had equal access to their residence; (5) that Melissa and Trevor “share expenses approximately equally”; and (6) that Melissa and Trevor “have a definite understanding as to shared household duties.” In reaching its decision, the trial court noted that the existence of the roommate agreement, that Melissa and Trevor did not commingle money, that Melissa and Trevor were not engaged nor did they consider themselves to be married, and that Melissa and Trevor were both students with a limited income supported the converse of Dean's motion: that Melissa and Trevor were not cohabitating.

Nevertheless, the trial court held that the factors supporting cohabitation outweighed the factors not supporting cohabitation because the evidence clearly showed that Melissa and Trevor decided to reside together primarily for romantic reasons not financial reasons. The trial court ordered the termination of Dean's spousal maintenance obligation effective October 1, 2015.

Following the issuance of the trial court's order, Dean moved to amend the termination date of his maintenance obligation. Dean argued that the correct date of termination was May 2015 because the trial court ruled that Melissa and Trevor had begun cohabitating at that time.

The trial court held a hearing on Dean's motion to amend judgment. The trial judge ultimately affirmed his prior ruling that Dean's maintenance obligation would terminate on October 1, 2015. In support of his ruling, the trial judge stated that he “believe[d] that ... [he] appropriately exercised [his] equitable authority and discretion in this matter.”

Dean timely appealed, and Melissa timely cross-appealed.

Because Melissa's cross-appeal, if successful, would be dispositive of Dean's contention that the trial court erred when it failed to terminate his maintenance obligation in May 2015, we will first consider Melissa's assertion that the trial court erred when it completely terminated Dean's maintenance obligation on October 1, 2015.

Did the Trial Court Err by Terminating Dean's Maintenance Obligation?

On appeal, Melissa argues that the trial court erred by finding that she and Trevor were cohabitating. In essence, Melissa argues that the trial court interpreted the facts incorrectly because she had been spending so much time in Medicine Lodge that one could not consider her cohabitating with Trevor at their Andover residence. Melissa also argues that she could not have been cohabitating with Trevor because cohabitation is one step away from marriage and their roommate agreement proves that they were not in a marital-like relationship. Dean responds that the trial court correctly determined that Melissa and Trevor were cohabitating given Melissa's testimony at the evidentiary hearing.

An appellate court applies a bifurcated standard when reviewing a motion to modify maintenance. In re Marriage of Strieby , 45 Kan.App.2d 953, 961, 255 P.3d 34 (2011). An appellate court will review the trial court's factual findings for substantial competent evidence and whether the trial court abused its discretion. Strieby , 45 Kan.App.2d at 961, 255 P.3d 34. To the extent the issue involves interpretation of the parties' settlement agreement, however, an appellate court exercises unlimited review. Strieby , 45 Kan.App.2d at 961, 255 P.3d 34. Substantial competent evidence constitutes such legal and relevant evidence that a reasonable person might accept as sufficient to support the trial court's conclusion. Gannon v. State , 298 Kan. 1107, 1175, 319 P.3d 1196 (2014). When engaging in this review, appellate courts should not reweigh the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. In re Marriage of Kuzanek , 279 Kan. 156, 160, 105 P.3d 1253 (2005).

Melissa and Dean's property settlement agreement did not define cohabitation. In the absence of an alternative definition of cohabitation within a divorce settlement agreement, we are guided by the following definition of cohabitation: “ ‘[To live] together as husband and wife [and] mutual assumption of those marital rights, duties and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, including but not necessarily dependent on sexual relations.’ ” Kuzanek , 279 Kan. at 158, 105 P.3d 1253, (quoting In re Marriage of Wessling , 12 Kan.App.2d 428, Syl. ¶ 6, 747 P.2d 187 [1987] ). “The circumstances of the relationship, as well as the realities of modern married life, may be considered by the trial court in determining whether the evidence establishes cohabitation.” Wessling , 12 Kan.App.2d 428, Syl. ¶ 7, 747 P.2d 187.

Here, the evidence showed that Melissa and Trevor were in a romantic relationship before deciding to live together. Then, upon moving in together, Melissa and Trevor divided their financial burdens and domestic chores evenly. The fact that Melissa intended to move all of her belongings into the Andover residence with Trevor shows that she considered the Andover residence her primary residence. Furthermore, the fact that Melissa referred to herself and Trevor as being part of “a blended family” and the fact that Melissa admitted that sh...