The impact of remarriage or cohabitation on spousal support under Michigan Family Law

I. INTRODUCTION 

Spousal support (also known as maintenance or alimony - importantly Michigan calls both Spousal Support) is a key component of divorce settlements in Michigan. It reflects the court’s recognition that one spouse may have foregone certain earning opportunities or contributed to the marriage in a way that warrants ongoing assistance from the other spouse. But what happens to that support when the recipient spouse remarries, or begins living with a new partner in a marriage-like relationship? 

In Michigan, neither remarriage nor cohabitation automatically ends a spousal support obligation, but either event may trigger modification or termination of support — depending on the terms of the judgment, the facts of the living arrangement, and whether one party’s financial need or ability to pay has changed.

Michigan’s approach to spousal support after remarriage or cohabitation is nuanced and highly fact-driven. Unlike some jurisdictions where remarriage results in automatic termination, Michigan law prioritizes equitable outcomes over rigid formulas. The courts are guided by statutory mandates and longstanding equitable principles, ensuring that decisions reflect the individual circumstances of each case. 

This means that while remarriage is often a clear basis to end support, cohabitation introduces questions of intent, dependency, and shared financial responsibility that the court must examine closely.

The interplay between financial dependence and personal freedom is central to these cases. Many recipients rely on spousal support to maintain stability after divorce, while payers often seek relief when the recipient appears to have formed a new economic partnership. 

Michigan’s courts thus balance two competing values: the continued fairness of support obligations against the recognition that a new relationship can alter the recipient’s financial situation. Through statutory interpretation and precedents, Michigan has developed a careful, precedent-based framework that weighs these competing interests.

The purpose of this blog is to examine how Michigan law treats remarriage and cohabitation in the context of spousal support, what the key statutory and case-law principles are, how support judgments should address these eventualities, and what practical guidance emerges for divorced parties and their attorneys.

II. STATUTORY AND STRUCTURAL FOUNDATIONS OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT IN MICHIGAN

In Michigan, spousal support is governed by the general divorce and support statutes alongside court rules and case law. According to Michigan Legal Help, when one spouse requests support the judge will consider the fourteen statutory factors set forth in § 553.23 of the Michigan Statutes (MCL 553.23) which include the length of the marriage, the parties’ incomes and needs, the ability of the supporting spouse to pay, and “the effect of cohabitation on a party’s financial status.

The Uniform Spousal Support Order (USSO) commonly used in Michigan divorce judgments sets out the duration of support, conditions for modification, and any termination triggers such as remarriage of the recipient spouse or death of either party. 

 Once spousal support is ordered — unless the parties agree otherwise — a spouse may file a motion to modify or terminate the award upon a material change of circumstances. Cohabitation or remarriage may qualify as such a change, but they are not automatically determinative.

III. REMARRIAGE OF THE RECIPIENT SPOUSE

In Michigan, remarriage of the spouse receiving (or entitled to receive) spousal support has long been treated as a possible termination event for support. Many support judgments include a termination provision along the lines of “until the death of either party or the remarriage of the recipient spouse.” 

In Lueck v. Lueck, 328 Mich.App. 399, 937 N.W.2d 729 (Mich. App. 2019) the Court of Appeals addressed whether a “commitment ceremony” constituted remarriage sufficient to terminate support. The court held that the term ‘remarries’ lacks ambiguity and means only a legal marriage recognized under Michigan law. 

Because the wife’s ceremony lacked a marriage license and legal recognition, the Court ruled that her actions did not constitute remarriage and therefore did not trigger the termination provision in the consent judgment.

This decision underscores that only a legal remarriage, performed according to Michigan’s marriage statutes ends spousal support if the judgment so specifies. A mere “marriage-like” relationship or private commitment ceremony will not suffice.

If the divorce judgment is silent about remarriage, the payor must move the court for termination, demonstrating that remarriage constitutes a material change of circumstances. Courts generally grant termination upon legal remarriage, unless unusual equities justify continued payments — such as arrears owed before remarriage, or a lump-sum award that is already vested.

As one practitioner survey explains, that when a spouse receiving support remarries, the support payments usually automatically stop. However, remarriage is a change in circumstances that authorizes the court to end spousal support if the court chooses to do so.

It is therefore critical that the divorcing spouses include a clear termination trigger in the judgment: if they intend support to end upon the recipient’s remarriage, the judgment should explicitly so provide. Without such language, the payor spouse will often need to go back to court and establish a modification.

In sum, remarriage of the recipient is treated as a strong basis for termination of support — the rationale being the recipient’s changed financial situation with a new spouse — but the effect depends heavily on the judgment’s terms and whether the legal standard for modification is satisfied.

IV. COHABITATION OF THE RECIPIENT SPOUSE WITH A NEW PARTNER

Cohabitation — i.e., living together with a new partner in a marriage-like relationship — is more complex under Michigan law than remarriage. Cohabitation does not automatically terminate spousal support. Michigan appellate law makes clear that the mere fact that the recipient lives with another adult is not enough by itself; rather the court will examine the nature of the relationship and whether it significantly changes the spouse’s financial need or the payor’s ability to pay.

In Smith v. Smith, 278 Mich App 198; 748 N.W.2d 258 (2008), the Court of Appeals addressed whether the divorce judgment’s clause terminating support upon the recipient’s cohabitation with a “non-related male” was triggered. The judgment did not define “cohabitation.” 

The court held that that merely sharing a home and expenses with another person without romantic involvement does not mandate termination of spousal support.it further explained that to find cohabitation, “a couple must be living together … as partners in life, or dwelling together, in the manner of husband and wife.” 

The practical takeaway is that if the recipient moves in with a new partner, the payor cannot automatically stop support. Instead, the payor must request modification or termination and show that the living-together arrangement is akin to a marriage: shared residence, intermingled finances, social presentation as a couple, etc. 

When the ex-spouse begins living with a new significant other. Michigan courts recognize that living with a new significant other can change the financial needs of the receiving spouse and may justify the modification.

V. HOW REMARRIAGE OR COHABITATION AFFECT MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION CLAIMS

Under Michigan law, spousal support may be modified or terminated when there is a “material change in circumstances” after the original judgment. This principle arises from both MCL 552.28, which permit either party to petition the court for modification unless the judgment expressly states that support is non-modifiable. It is important for a party to a divorce case to make sure that they do not include any non-modifiable language of spousal support in their final Judgment of Divorce. Bear in mind, this may not always be possible and every case is fact specific - you should always defer to your retained attorney for specific details. Regardless, the Michigan Supreme Court has emphasized that modification requires more than dissatisfaction with the existing order — there must be a substantial and continuing change that affects either the recipient’s need or the payor’s ability to pay.

A. Evidentiary Burden and Proof in Cohabitation Cases

The burden of proof rests on the moving party — usually the payor spouse — to demonstrate that cohabitation has created a material change in circumstances. Michigan courts require specific, detailed evidence rather than suspicion or assumption.

Evidence often presented includes joint bank accounts or shared leases, evidence of joint financial obligations, testimony about shared living expenses, observations of the couple’s shared domestic life; and statements or social media postings identifying them as partners.

If such evidence demonstrates a stable, marriage-like relationship, the court may infer that the recipient’s financial need is reduced and adjust or terminate support. However, absent clear financial benefit, cohabitation alone is insufficient.

In Korth v. Korth, 256 Mich App 286, 662 N.W.2d 111 (2003), the Court of Appeals emphasized that the trial court must make specific findings of fact regarding relevant factors when deciding whether to modify support, that the trial court should make specific findings of fact regarding those factors that are relevant to the particular case.

This means that every cohabitation case must be analyzed on its unique facts — the financial interdependence, duration, and intent of the relationship are decisive.

B. The Court’s Discretion and the Role of Equitable Principles

Even when evidence supports a finding of cohabitation or remarriage, Michigan trial courts retain broad discretion to determine whether to modify or terminate support. Spousal support remains an equitable remedy, designed to achieve fairness.

As the Michigan Supreme Court stated in Sparks v. Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 485 N.W.2d 893 (1992) that the main objective of spousal support is to balance the incomes and needs of the parties so that neither will be impoverished.

Consequently, a court may refuse to terminate support despite cohabitation if doing so would create hardship or undermine fairness. Likewise, a court may terminate support even absent a judgment clause if continued payment would unjustly enrich the recipient.

Thus, Michigan’s jurisprudence treats cohabitation and remarriage not as automatic triggers, but as equitable factors within a broader inquiry into fairness and changed circumstances.

VI. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR PAYORS AND RECIPIENTS

For payors: If the recipient remarries and the judgment says support ends on remarriage, they should move for termination promptly and provide proof of the remarriage. If the recipient begins living with a partner, the payor should monitor whether the new arrangement resembles marriage — shared residence, combined finances, joint bills — and consider moving for modification if the arrangement produces materially reduced need. 

However, until the court orders termination, payments must continue; non-payment without court order risks arrears and enforcement. Michigan Legal Help warns: “Either party can ask for a change in periodic spousal support unless the parties agree … not to allow changes.” 

For recipients: Entering a new living arrangement may risk termination or reduction of support. Even if the judgment does not include a cohabitation clause, the recipient should be cautious about financial entanglement with a new partner. Courts look at the financial status of both parties; if the recipient’s need appears diminished because of cohabitation, the payor may gain grounds for modification.

From a strategic standpoint, both parties should document their financial circumstances meticulously once remarriage or cohabitation occurs. Payors should retain proof of all payments made, as overpayment after a termination event can be difficult to recover.

Recipients, on the other hand, should maintain records showing that their new relationship does not significantly reduce their need for support — such as evidence of separate finances, rent payments, or division of expenses. This documentation becomes critical if litigation arises, since the burden of proof on modification or termination depends heavily on clear financial evidence rather than assumptions about the new relationship.

Another key consideration involves tax and financial planning. Since the 2019 changes under the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), spousal support payments are no longer tax-deductible for the payor nor taxable income to the recipient for divorces. This change can alter the economics of modification discussions after remarriage or cohabitation. 

For instance, a payor who loses deductibility has less disposable income, while a recipient who enters a financially supportive cohabitation might see a larger net gain. Attorneys should therefore integrate tax analysis into modification motions, ensuring that any adjusted amount reflects post-TCJA realities and maintains equitable treatment under § 553.23 of the Michigan Statutes (MCL 553.23) fairness standard.

Lastly, both payors and recipients should understand that Friend of the Court (FOC) oversight does not automatically end upon cohabitation or remarriage. The FOC can continue to monitor compliance with existing orders until the court formally enters a modification or termination order. 

Ignoring this step can result in enforcement actions even if the underlying relationship has changed. Prompt motion practice, supported by clear affidavits and factual exhibits, remains the most efficient and legally safe route for both parties when relationships evolve after divorce.

VII. CONCLUSION

Remarriage and cohabitation of a spouse receiving support in Michigan are significant events in the lifecycle of a spousal support award—but neither automatically guarantees termination of support. Remarriage of the recipient spouse is widely recognized as a factor justifying termination, particularly where the support judgment includes a clear termination clause. 

Cohabitation, by contrast, triggers a fact-specific inquiry: courts ask whether the new living arrangement resembles marriage and meaningfully impacts financial need or payor ability. Attorneys advising clients should ensure support judgments address remarriage and cohabitation contingencies, define cohabitation when contemplated, and alert clients to their rights to modify or terminate support.

For payors and recipients alike, proactive monitoring of changed circumstances, prompt motion work, and documented evidence are essential to protecting financial interests and avoiding surprise obligations or liabilities. In Michigan’s family‐law landscape, clarity, precision, and readiness matter.