In a very literal reading of a divorce agreement, a Florida appeals court has ruled that a woman can no longer receive alimony from her ex-husband because of her “cohabitation” with another person in a prison cell.

When Andrew and Patricia Craissati divorced in 2001, they agreed that any alimony payments to her would end “upon the death of either party, remarriage, or cohabitation with another person other than the parties' child” for three consecutive months or more.

Patricia Craissati, who had been receiving $2,000 a month from her ex-husband, is now serving nine years in prison on charges relating to a DUI -– and a 2-1 majority of the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled earlier this month that alimony should be terminated because she is sharing a cell with another inmate.

“Because Wife has agreed that her living with a cellmate amounts to cohabitation as that term is defined in the settlement agreement, and because driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is a voluntary act which is known to possibly result in incarceration, we cannot say that on these facts such an interpretation of the agreement leads to an absurd result,” Judge Mary Barzee Flores wrote.

The ruling reversed a trial court judge who had denied Andrew Craissati's petition for modification of alimony, citing the absurdity of “constru[ing] the term ‘another person’ ... to include a ‘prison inmate.’” Under an ancient legal principle, a term in a contract is not to be construed in a manner that leads to an absurd result.

In a dissent, Judge Larry A. Klein rejected the majority's view that “the wife should have anticipated that her voluntary act of driving under the influence could have landed her in this position when she signed the agreement.”

“That reasoning,” he explained, “does not support the result because it is not the incarceration which constitutes cohabitation. It is the mere happenstance that she must share her jail cell with another person, which is the sole factor which makes this cohabitation.”

Klein also agreed with Patricia Craissati that “cohabitation” could be construed, under the majority's reading, to terminate alimony if

she was kidnapped and required to live with her captor, or was long-term hospitalized in a semi-private room [with] another patient or [was] in the armed forces and had a female serviceperson as a roommate, all for a period of 3 consecutive months or more ...

Some online commenters have said it would be absurd for Patricia Craissati to keep receiving alimony while the state is supporting her. But incarceration in and of itself does not void an alimony order -– as a New Jersey appeals court recently demonstrated in awarding spousal support to a woman serving time for killing her ex-husband's child. Calbi v. Calbi, 935 A.2d 796 (2007).

Patricia Craissati's lawyer plans to seek a rehearing before the appeals court. "It goes to show the most winnable case is losable and the most losable case is winnable," Steven Cripps said.

By Matthew Heller
12/20/08