Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Alimony topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates broad alimony reform; bill circled for further work after lengthy floor discussion
Summary
Senate Bill 96, a third substitute revising alimony law, drew extended debate on statutory definitions of cohabitation and fault and a proposed self‑sufficiency plan; sponsor said the changes respond to a Court of Appeals ruling and are intended to make fault usable in alimony decisions; the bill was circled for more study.
Senate Bill 96, a third substitute addressing alimony, generated one of the session's most extensive floor debates. Sponsor Senator Hilliard outlined three principal changes: a statutory definition of "cohabitation," a non‑mandatory statutory definition of "fault" that courts may consider when setting alimony, and a requirement that parties seeking larger or longer alimony awards submit a self‑sufficiency plan.
On cohabitation, the bill creates a rebuttable presumption that spending seven or more nights in a 14‑day period with a romantic partner indicates cohabitation, shifting the burden of proof. Senator Hilliard said the change aims to create a provable standard where case law has been inconsistent. "Cohabit means two non‑related persons living together in a romantic relationship," he said, and acknowledged the presumption is rebuttable.
The sponsor said the Court of Appeals has limited courts' ability to consider fault unless the legislature defines it; the bill offers a working definition tying fault to acts that "affect the mental, physical or emotional condition" of a party or that reduce a party's earning capacity. The sponsor emphasized the change is discretionary, not mandatory, and listed examples such as severe abuse or addiction.
The third component would require a party seeking alimony above a specified monthly threshold and for more than five years to submit a plan describing how the recipient could become self‑sufficient; the court could waive this requirement for good cause. Critics worried about imposing planning tasks on parties at the start of an emotional divorce process and about increased litigation and burden on the courts. Senators Valentine, Reid and Dayton urged further study and expressed concern the measure would be better hashed out in interim committee.
After extended debate and questions about timing and court workload, Senator Hilliard moved to circle the bill so the Judiciary Committee and interested parties can continue work; the motion carried and the bill was placed on the circle list for future consideration.
