Can I Include a Cohabitation Clause in My Spousal Maintenance Agreement, and What Should I Know Before Trying to Enforce One in Minnesota?

It’s a question many paying spouses ask: If my ex moves in with someone else, shouldn’t my spousal maintenance stop? In Minnesota, the idea of putting that expectation into writing—through a cohabitation clause in the divorce decree—sounds logical. But the reality is much more complicated.

Cohabitation clauses are not prohibited, but they are rare, hard to negotiate, and even harder to enforce. Whether you’re thinking of requesting one, or facing pressure to accept one, it’s important to understand how these clauses operate—and what Minnesota law actually says about cohabitation and spousal maintenance.

The Wish for Clarity—and the Fight That Follows

After their divorce, Craig* and Denise* Larsen kept a respectful distance. Their decree included a standard spousal maintenance provision: Craig would pay monthly support, and it would continue until Denise remarried or either of them died. A few years later, Craig heard that Denise had moved in with a new boyfriend. He wasn’t surprised—but he was frustrated. The decree didn’t say anything about cohabitation.

If only, Craig thought, they had included a clause that would end support when Denise started living with someone else. He assumed it would have saved him months of legal wrangling. But Denise’s attorney argued that even if a clause had been included, it wouldn’t be that simple. And the court might not have enforced it anyway.

What Is a Cohabitation Clause?

A cohabitation clause is language in a spousal maintenance agreement that states maintenance will terminate or be reviewed if the recipient begins living with another adult in a romantic relationship. These clauses attempt to preempt the complexity of proving financial benefit from cohabitation after the fact.

But such clauses are often controversial—and difficult to make stick.

Minnesota already provides a statutory basis for seeking modification of spousal maintenance due to cohabitation under Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6 (2024). That law says cohabitation can justify a modification, but only if it materially changes the obligee’s financial need or ability to support themselves.

So if the law already offers a pathway to modify, why include a cohabitation clause at all?

Because it might offer clarity. But clarity, unfortunately, does not equal enforceability.

Why These Clauses Are So Rare

Judges, mediators, and attorneys alike know that the future is hard to predict. That’s one reason why cohabitation clauses are relatively uncommon in Minnesota divorce settlements. These clauses often raise more questions than they resolve:

• What exactly counts as cohabitation?
• How long must the cohabitation last?
• What if the new partner doesn’t contribute financially?
• What if they move in temporarily? Or leave and come back?

These questions make enforcement complicated. And more often than not, a clause without specificity is useless—or worse, it creates the illusion of certainty while generating costly litigation later.

Even when well-drafted, cohabitation clauses can backfire. Courts may view them skeptically, particularly if they conflict with the standards set by Minnesota’s modification statute. A court might refuse to enforce the clause unless the statutory criteria for modification are also satisfied. In other words, the existence of a clause does not override the need to prove a change in circumstances under the law.

A Costly Battle for Certainty

In most cases, the party receiving maintenance is understandably reluctant to agree to a clause that could terminate support based on ambiguous future events. And for the paying spouse, inserting a cohabitation clause often comes at a negotiation cost: agreeing to pay more upfront, compromising on another issue, or facing conflict that delays settlement.

In practice, the effort to secure a cohabitation clause can cause more expense and tension than it’s worth—especially since Minnesota already provides a route for modification through court if real financial changes occur due to cohabitation.

Ultimately, the value of these clauses lies in careful drafting and mutual understanding—but they are far from a silver bullet.

What This Means for You

If you are considering requesting a cohabitation clause in your spousal maintenance agreement, be sure you understand:

• These clauses are rarely accepted without negotiation trade-offs
• They must be narrowly and clearly defined to have a shot at enforceability
• Even if included, they don’t guarantee automatic termination of maintenance
• The legal standard for changing maintenance still requires proof under Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6 (2024)

And if you’re on the receiving end of such a request, understand that courts will scrutinize these provisions closely—and that Minnesota law does not presume spousal maintenance should end just because someone starts a new relationship.

Final Thoughts

A cohabitation clause might seem like a straightforward protection—but it’s not. The clause must be carefully drafted, balanced with legal standards, and realistically enforced. For most people, the better course is to rely on Minnesota’s modification statute when life circumstances change.

Before insisting on—or agreeing to—a cohabitation clause, talk to your attorney about whether the potential protection is worth the likely conflict.

📚 Citations:

• Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6 (2024). – (Outlines when cohabitation with another adult may justify modification of spousal maintenance, focusing on financial impact rather than mere living arrangement.)

*The identities of these parties and facts of their matter were publicly published and thus not confidential. While the case holding and statutory references are accurate, creative liberty has been imposed for the emotional portrayal of the parties.