Cathleen Quinn, Plaintiff-Respondent v. David J. Quinn, Defendant-Appellant

Summary

The Court held that a clear and unequivocal property-settlement provision requiring termination of alimony upon the recipient spouse’s cohabitation must be enforced when the agreement was entered knowingly and voluntarily, with independent counsel and without fraud, coercion, overreaching, or unconscionability. Because Cathleen’s twenty-eight-month relationship qualified as cohabitation and later cessation of that relationship did not alter the agreed consequence, the trial court could not substitute a temporary suspension and reinstatement remedy for permanent termination. Justice Albin, dissenting, would have held that an anti-cohabitation clause untethered to changed economic circumstances violates public policy and is unenforceable.