Easing the Standard for a Prima Face Case in Cohabitation Cases: A Closer Look at New Case Law Cardali v. Cardali

In a continued trend to make the prima facie showing of cohabitation easier, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in its recent August 2023 decision in Cardali v. Cardali that the moving party does not need to present evidence on all of the cohabitation factors set forth in Konzelman v Konzelman 158 N.J. 185 (1999) in order to be granted limited discovery. This includes not requiring the moving party to show intertwined finances. This is in keeping with the trend in cohabitation law set by the 2021 decision in Temple v Temple.

Cardali v. Cardali  : A Glimpse into the Case

In Cardali, the moving party John Cardali, a divorced man paying alimony to his ex-wife, Maria Cardali, petitioned the court to terminate his alimony payments on the grounds that Ms. Cardali is cohabitating with her new partner, Mark Anderson.

In Cardali, while the moving party showed indicia of cohabitation, he was unable to show evidence of any financial relationship between Ms. Cardali and Mr. Anderson. The Supreme Court noted at the outset that they did not view either the case law or the statute to “… require evidence of a financial relationship between the spouse or civil union partner receiving alimony and the other person as a prerequisite to discovery; as  a practical matter, such a showing may be impossible without discovery” (Emphasis added). This is a development of the holding in Temple that was not specifically addressed.

The Supreme Court ruled that as a policy, “…the mandate that a movant present a prima facie showing in order to obtain discovery is not intended to impose a high bar.” (Emphasis added). In fact, the Court reiterated the definition of prima facia as “evidence that, if unrebutted, would sustain a judgment in the proponent’s favor.” In fact, the Supreme Court in Cardali, noted as in prior cases, that the ability to show all facts, particularly intertwined finances, is not necessary, and in most cases, not possible. The Court held:

Indeed, any such requirement would impose an unfair burden on a movant at the preliminary stage. Absent discovery, a movant is unlikely to have access to the financial records and other documents relevant to Konzelman’s financial factors — “intertwined finances such as joint bank accounts” and “sharing living expenses” — or their statutory counterparts, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n)(1) and (n)(2).

 Once a prima facie case is made and discovery is ordered, it is not meant to be a open ended fishing expedition. Rather, the Court held that:

In fashioning its discovery order, the trial court should take appropriate steps to safeguard the privacy of the spouse or civil union partner receiving alimony and the individual with whom that person is alleged to be cohabiting. Those steps may include, but are not limited to limited to, constraints on the discovery to be provided to the movant and protective orders limiting access to the information subject to discovery.

 The Court then noted that after this limited discovery, the procedure would be for the parties to submit supplemental certifications and if material facts remain in dispute, a plenary hearing should be conducted.

For help with your cohabitation case or your family law or divorce issues contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. at Fraser Family Law Office, LLC. 609-223-2099.