In re Marriage of Kopac, 87,557.
| Decision Date | 07 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 87,557.,87,557. |
| Citation | 47 P.3d 425,30 Kan. App.2d 735 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Marriage of ANDREW J. KOPAC, Appellant, and PATRICIA A. KOPAC, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Charles E. Wetzler and David R. Frye, of Lathrop & Gage L.C., of Overland Park, for the appellant.
Ronald W. Nelson, of Rose, Nelson & Booth, of Overland Park, for the appellee.
Before LEWIS, P.J., BRAZIL, S.J. and GLENN D. SCHIFFNER, District Judge, assigned.
Andrew Kopac and Patricia Kopac were divorced in 1999. The divorce decree awarded maintenance to Patricia in the amount of $2,000 per month for the first year and $1,875 per month after the first year until July 1, 2008. Andrew filed a motion to terminate his maintenance. The trial court denied that motion and awarded attorney fees to Patricia. Andrew appeals from the decision of the trial court.
We affirm. Andrew and Patricia had two sons. One of those sons, J.K., suffers from a rare neurological disorder that has left him wheelchair bound. Because of J.K.'s disability, Patricia has been unemployed throughout his life and remains unable to seek employment because of the need to care for their son. We note that J.K. had reached the age of majority at the time of the divorce but remains in need of constant care.
As we understand the facts, one of the primary reasons for the divorce was that Patricia had rekindled a romance with her high school sweetheart, Allan Mazur. She rekindled that romance to the extent that she advised Andrew she was going to move to Massachusetts to be near Mazur.
The trial court ordered maintenance as set forth above. The trial court's order provided that maintenance would terminate immediately upon any one of the following events: death of either party, remarriage of the wife, cohabitation by the wife with an unrelated adult male in a marriage-like relationship, or the date of July 1, 2008.
The basis for Andrew's motion was that maintenance should be terminated because Patricia and Mazur were cohabitating. Patricia and J.K. currently live in a house at 13 Verdun Road in Wilmington, Massachusetts. This house is owned by Mazur, and he pays the mortgage and taxes on the residence. However, Patricia pays rent for Mazur on an apartment where he resides. Patricia also pays for the utilities at the home in which she and J.K. reside.
Patricia insists she is not cohabitating with Mazur. She testified she has no joint bank accounts with him, and they have no credit cards together. Her income tax is filed as "single, head of household." She keeps a small life insurance policy with Mazur listed as beneficiary, explaining it would give Mazur enough money to bury her if she predeceases him.
Patricia went on to testify that she is not living with Mazur, is not married to him, and has no intention of getting married. She admits that Mazur has spent the night at her home between 8 and 20 times since she moved to Massachusetts. Andrew testified that he calls J.K. every Sunday and sometimes Mazur answers the phone. The trial court, in denying Andrew's motion, noted there had been some evidence presented to support Andrew's theory of cohabitation, but ultimately the trial court held Andrew had failed to establish his burden of proof in showing cohabitation. The court reasoned that the rationale for terminating maintenance upon cohabitation is that the ex-spouse's financial support had been replaced by the lover's financial support. The court noted that Patricia and Mazur did not share bank accounts or living expenses.
The trial court noted that Patricia's attorneys had created unnecessary controversy over discovery. Nevertheless, the court awarded attorney fees to Patricia. It reduced the amount of fees requested in the light of the discovery controversy and awarded Patricia $2,000 in attorney fees.
Our standard of review in a case of this nature is to examine the record and determine if there is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's ruling and whether the trial court has abused its discretion. In re Marriage of Bowers, 23 Kan. App.2d 641, 643, 933 P.2d 176 (1997).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Adoption of X.J.A., 96,003.
...competent evidence supports the district court's finding that M.A. and E.M. were common-law husband and wife. See In re Marriage of Kopac, 30 Kan.App.2d 735, 47 P.3d 425 (2002). Therefore, pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2113, at least on this basis the district court had jurisdiction to grant a decr......
-
In re Welter
...of Kuzanek , 279 Kan. 156, 158-62, 105 P.3d 1253 (2005) (applying the definition of "cohabitation" from In re Marriage of Kopac , 30 Kan. App. 2d 735, 737, 47 P.3d 425 [2002] ). Although it found that Keira met the cohabitation terms of the divorce decree, the district court decided not to ......
-
IN RE MARRIAGE OF VANDENBERG
...would terminate upon the cohabitation of the recipient. See e.g., Kuzanek, 279 Kan. at 157-62, 105 P.3d 1253; In re Marriage of Kopac, 30 Kan.App.2d 735, 736, 47 P.3d 425 (2002); In re Marriage of Wessling, 12 Kan. App.2d 428, 429-32, 747 P.2d 187 (1987) (discussing the unambiguous, accepte......
-
In re Marriage of Vandenberg, No. 101,745 (Kan. App. 4/30/2010)
...maintenance would terminate upon the cohabitation of the recipient. See e.g., Kuzanek, 279 Kan. at 157-62; In re Marriage of Kopac, 30 Kan. App. 2d 735, 736, 47 P.3d 425 (2002); In re Marriage of Wessling, 12 Kan. App. 2d 428, 429-32, 747 P.2d 187 (1987) (discussing the unambiguous, accepte......