Bank accounts, overnight stays, shared expenses, social media, even access to a home’s security system: cohabitation discovery can reach deeply into a former spouse’s private life. New Jersey’s 2025 rule changes give that process a more defined structure.

Effective September 1, 2025, Rule 4:17-1(c) and Appendices XXXI and XXXII introduced uniform interrogatories and suggested document requests for post-judgment cohabitation applications. The practical questions now extend beyond whether a spouse has enough evidence to obtain discovery. What questions must be answered? What records may be requested? Who sets the limits?

The rules provide a structured process, subject to a threshold judicial finding and continuing court supervision. For appellate purposes, both the decision to permit discovery and the scope of the resulting order deserve careful attention.

Fifty-Two Questions About the Relationship

Appendix XXXI contains 52 numbered interrogatories, some with subparts. Its general questions address residences, knowledgeable witnesses, experts and investigators, income, and the relationship’s history. Six substantive groupings then explore:

• Intertwined finances: payments, property, loans, businesses, accounts, and debts.
• Shared expenses: meals, housing, activities, subscriptions, and transportation accounts, along with beneficiary designations and estate documents.
• Social and family recognition: introductions, social media, celebrations, travel, holidays, gifts, and involvement with children.
• Living arrangements and contact: overnight stays, communications, security systems, and access to residences.
• Household chores: repairs, maintenance, gardening, and snow removal.
• Support: promises made or received and payments supporting others.

These subjects closely track six factors in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n), although the questions overlap and include background information. The final question identifies when the answers were completed and who assisted. A request about a promise of support does not itself establish that the promise is legally enforceable.

The form makes clear that financial records are only part of the inquiry. How the couple functions within a household, family, and social circle also matters. But no single answer automatically establishes cohabitation, and the questions do not create 52 separate legal requirements.

What Must Be Answered—and What Remains Subject to Limits?

A prima facie showing means evidence that, if unrebutted, would sustain a judgment in the moving party’s favor. Cardali v. Cardali, 255 N.J. 85, 109 (2023) (quoting Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91, 118 (2001), overruled on other grounds by Bisbing v. Bisbing, 230 N.J. 309, 328–36 (2017)). Here, it is the threshold for discovery, not a final decision to terminate alimony.

Once the court finds a prima facie case, Rule 4:17-1(c) limits the alimony payor to Appendix XXXI’s interrogatories, as appropriate. The appendix requires answers unless the court excuses a question or privilege or a protective order applies.

Each party may add ten supplemental questions without subparts. Additional interrogatories require permission on motion. The court sets service and response times at a discovery conference.

That conference is consequential. Appendix XXXI directs the court to issue an order for limited discovery, including updated Case Information Statements, interrogatory answers, document production, and other necessary limited discovery. The default period is the two years preceding the motion’s filing, unless the court finds good cause for a different timeframe.

Appendix XXXII supplies suggested document requests, including tax returns, account records, housing documents, insurance information, and records of expenses paid for one another. Unlike the interrogatory form, it expressly states that it is not mandated by Rule 4:17-1(c). It should not be treated as an automatic entitlement to every listed document.

Counsel should therefore address the disputed issues, relevant period, necessary records, and privacy protections when the discovery order is fashioned. Standard forms do not eliminate the need for an order tailored to the case.

General discovery limits also remain important. Rule 4:10-2(g), amended effective September 1, 2026, expressly covers parties and nonparties. Courts must limit discovery’s frequency or extent when, among other grounds, requests are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or their burden or expense outweighs their likely benefit under the rule’s listed factors.

The Forms Do Not Eliminate the Threshold Showing

The forms become available only after the required judicial finding. An accusation of cohabitation does not itself open the recipient’s private records.

The foundation remains Cardali v. Cardali, 255 N.J. 85 (2023). A certification addressing some relevant cohabitation factors, supported by competent evidence that would establish cohabitation if unrebutted, can satisfy the prima facie requirement. The moving spouse need not first obtain inaccessible financial evidence.

At this preliminary stage, supported allegations receive an assumption of truth and the benefit of reasonable inferences. Conflicting certifications do not, by themselves, defeat the showing. The judge should not discount competent supporting evidence simply because the recipient disputes it. Cardali, 255 N.J. at 109.

The discovery rules do not rewrite a settlement agreement. Its terms and the law governing it still matter when identifying the applicable cohabitation standard.

Permission to Investigate Is Not Termination of Alimony

Cardali reversed the denial of discovery and remanded. It did not finally find cohabitation or terminate alimony.

After limited discovery, the parties submit supplemental certifications. If material facts remain disputed, the court must conduct a plenary hearing to receive testimony and resolve those disputes. The moving party retains the burden of proving cohabitation throughout. Cardali, 255 N.J. at 112.

The forms help develop the record needed for that decision. Obtaining answers is not a ruling that the recipient must disprove cohabitation.

The Discovery Order Must Do More Than Refer to the Forms

The 2025 rules give both sides a concrete starting point. The paying spouse can identify questions and records needed to test the alleged relationship. The recipient can identify requests that exceed the relevant period, duplicate information, or require protection.

The judge must still decide whether the threshold has been met and control the discovery that follows. A reference to the standard forms does not replace those decisions.

If discovery is denied despite a sufficient showing, or ordered without the required finding or appropriate limits, the resulting order deserves careful appellate evaluation. The practical stakes are access to evidence on one side and protection against unwarranted intrusion on the other.