Mennen v. Mennen
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
2019 WL 1468745 (2019)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Nancy Mennen (plaintiff) and John Mennen (defendant) divorced. The ensuing settlement agreement provided that John would pay Nancy $5,500 in monthly alimony—an obligation that would terminate in the event of cohabitation between Nancy and another man. Years later, John argued that Nancy had begun living in a marriage-like arrangement with another man, J.K., as evidenced by an investigator’s report showing that J.K. was at Nancy’s house most of the time. As further evidence, John cited pictures from Nancy’s Facebook page showing Nancy and J.K. attending events together. John moved to compel additional discovery from Nancy. Nancy countered by certifying that J.K. had lost his home to foreclosure and was living with his brother, 45 minutes from Nancy’s home, but that J.K. sometimes stayed with Nancy to be closer to his job. Nancy showed that J.K. had filed for bankruptcy and listed no codebtors on his petition. It was also shown that J.K. appeared in only five photos among 31 pages of pictures posted on Nancy’s Facebook page over a seven-year period. There was no evidence of shared finances between Nancy and J.K.—e.g., joint bank accounts or asset holdings. The court denied John’s motion, finding that he had failed to make a prima facie showing of cohabitation. John appealed to the New Jersey Superior Court’s appellate division.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
