Carol Schaffeld’s divorce settlement required her former husband to pay monthly alimony until she remarried or entered a meretricious relationship. He stopped paying after concluding that she had entered such a relationship, and the trial court denied her contempt motion. The evidence showed that Schaffeld had an exclusive partner who lived about 45 miles away. They spent nights, holidays, and trips together, but he never lived continuously with her, kept no clothes or toiletries there, received no mail there, and did not pay her household bills. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. It held that the phrase meretricious relationship, as used in the agreement, carried the established meaning of an unmarried relationship involving continuous, open cohabitation. The parties could have defined the phrase differently, but the agreement did not do so. Because the undisputed evidence did not establish continuous, open cohabitation, the trial court erred in treating the relationship as a terminating event for alimony. The case returned for further proceedings consistent with that interpretation.