Before 2014, a divorced spouse had to show that his ex-spouse shared a common residence with a new partner in order to prove they were living together and be able to stop paying alimony.

But under the Alimony Reform Act of 2014, an ex-spouse no longer has to be living full-time in the same home as another person to be engaged in "cohabitation."

More than a year after the law was passed, advocates of the new law -- generally ex-husbands -- say there have been improvements, but they have been more modest than they envisioned.

It's less difficult to prove cohabitation, or that an ex-spouse is in a virtual new marriage and effectively living with the new partner, and shouldn't get payments anymore. That issue was raised in a Morris County case this week in which a former husband is seeking to terminate his alimony obligation.

The change in cohabitation was made to remedy a situation where "people are in a marital relationship, for all intents and purposes, but don't get married and keep their separate homes, just so one of them can keep getting an alimony payment. That is a problem," said Jeralyn Lawrence, former chairwoman of the New Jersey Bar Association's family law section, who helped develop the new law.

When New Jersey was debating possible changes in its alimony law back in 2012, advocates of reform were hoping for sweeping changes that would benefit the payers of alimony.

The new law got rid of so-called "permanent alimony" and added the "presumption" that payments may stop when the alimony payer retires.

But after the bill went through numerous revisions at the hands of legislators and the state's bar association, the purpose became more to clarify existing rules that weren't well defined than to benefit one group, attorneys say.

"There is more of a level playing field now," said Thomas Leustek, founder of New Jersey Alimony Reform, although he acknowledged the law didn't have everything advocates wanted.

The main problem is that the law was not made retroactive to issues negotiated before the Alimony Reform Act was enacted in September 2014, said Leustek, a biology professor at Rutgers University in New Brunswick.

However, the new law can be applied to issues that were "silent," or not negotiated, before the law was passed, said Lawrence of the bar association.

Among the key changes brought by the new law was the elimination of the term "permanent alimony," which attorneys say was a misnomer in the first place because there was always a chance the alimony requirements could be changed.

The replacement term is "open durational alimony," under which alimony can be modified or terminated if the payer can prove a change in circumstances -- most frequently, a reduction in income.

Also, there is a new "presumption" that when someone formally retires at the federal age for Social Security benefits, he or she no longer has to pay alimony, although he or she will have to get an order from a judge to allow that. And in cases of high-income retirement, the payer may have to keep paying, attorneys say.

The new law defines "cohabitation," or living together, as "a mutually supportive, intimate personal relationship" that would be the equivalent of a marriage.

Under the new law, a judge may consider eight factors in determining whether cohabitation is occurring. An ex-spouse need not prove all the factors, but at least some of them must be there.

"We recognized that not all marriages, and not all divorces, are the same," Lawrence said.

8 FACTORS THAT DETERMINE COHABITATION

An ex-spouse doesn't have to prove all of them, but a judge must consider them in deciding whether the new relationship is the equivalent of a marriage:

* Intermingled finances

* Shared responsibility for living expenses

* Recognition of the relationship in the couple's family and social circle

* Living together and frequency of contact

* Shared household chores

* Whether the alimony recipient has received an enforceable promise of support from another individual

* The relationship's length

* Any additional relevant evidence

The new law has caused "a lot of anxiety about the future" among people receiving alimony, including low-income women who still depend on those payments, said Kevin Kelly, a law professor at Seton Hall University who represents indigent clients through the university's law clinic.

Although many aspects of the new law still await court tests, the law generally "makes it easier for the person paying the alimony to go back into court to challenge it," agreed Lynn Newsome, a family law attorney based in Florham Park.

Generally, family attorneys agreed the new law is helpful in defining things better, although they acknowledged its terms will likely undergo a number of court tests.

"It is viewed by many as having made the alimony process more streamlined, objective and transparent," said Bari Weinberger, a family law attorney based in Parsippany. "Clarifying the issue of cohabitation is part of this streamlining process."

However, Weinberger added in an email, "Compared to other grounds that can be cited when attempting to terminate alimony, cohabitation may be one of the most difficult to prove -- especially when the former spouse and new romantic partner still maintain separate residences or are actively attempting to conceal cohabitation. Pursuing termination of alimony on the grounds of cohabitation is not something to undertake lightly."

In the Morris County case, William Kloehn of Mendham Township is seeking to terminate the alimony for his former wife, Yvonne Kloehn, who has a boyfriend, even though they do not live together.

The ex-wife's attorney contended the alimony should continue because although the couple date about three times a week, they do not share homes, household chores or finances.

If the ex-wife's argument proves true, she won't likely lose her alimony, said the bar association's Lawrence.

However, it will be up to Judge Maritza Berdote Byrne to review the materials submitted and then decide whether there is enough evidence to hold a full "plenary" hearing.

Family attorneys interviewed for this article agreed that since the new law was passed, a number of alimony payers have gone into court to try to prove cohabitation by ex-spouses who don't live with their new paramours.

However, a precise number was not available. A spokesman said the state judiciary does not track the number of alimony cases.

Also, because the law is so new, both the bar association's Lawrence and other family attorneys said they know of no cases filed under the new cohabitation rules that have been decided. They pointed out it is a slow process, because a judge must first decide if there is enough evidence to proceed, and then hold a full hearing.

However, the attorneys cited a cohabitation case ruled on by a state appeals court in 2015 that was based on the old law, but that made reference to the new law. They said it touched on many of the same issues raised in the Kloehn case and may be used for guidance in the future.

In that case involving Theodore and Diane Mary Wachtell, a wealthy couple who had lived in Chatham, a Superior Court judge in Morris County ruled there was cohabitation, but the decision was overturned by a state appeals court, which returned the case to Superior Court for a full hearing.

In the Wachtell case, the ex-wife received property worth approximately $7.8 million, including the marital residence, and alimony was capped at $450,000 per year, the appeals court wrote.

In seeking to terminate the alimony, the ex-husband contended the ex-wife was spending nearly every Thursday through Sunday at her boyfriend's home; and they had gone on several vacations together and had accompanied the parties' daughter to a national horse championship.

The ex-wife countered that she was spending just "two or three nights" a week at the boyfriend's home, and said they shared no expenses.

The judge ruled there was cohabitation, saying the ex-wife was "in a serious committed relationship tantamount to marriage."

However, in overturning that decision, the appeals court sent the case back to Superior Court, saying a full "plenary" hearing is required to resolve the differences between the ex-spouses' accounts and determine whether there was truly cohabitation.

Ben Horowitz may be reached at bhorowitz@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @HorowitzBen. Find NJ.com on Facebook.