Few subjects in family law have engendered more debate, appeals, articles and lectures over the past nine years than "cohabitation." See Matheu D. Nunn, Jeralyn Lawrence, et. al., "'Temple' of Doom: The Prima Facie Showing of Cohabitation Remains a Mystery," (December 15, 2022); see also John P. Paone Jr. and Cassie Murphy, "Cohabitation Under NJ Law: A Special Relationship" (June 30, 2021); Matheu D. Nunn and Kristi Terranova, "Cohabitation Frustration: A Primer on Prima Facie," 227 N.J.L.J. 145 (January 18, 2021). In fact, there have been more than 60 appeals on that subject since 2014, see Barry S. Sobel, "Survey of Post-2014 Amendment New Jersey Cohabitation Cases," 41 N.J. Fam. L. 2 (2023), including the Supreme Court's Aug. 8, 2023 decision in Cardali v. Cardali, ___ N.J. ___ (2023). The vast majority of these cases hinged on whether a movant or alimony-payor presented sufficient proofs at the motion stage to obtain discovery and a hearing. See, e.g., Temple v. Temple, 468 N.J. Super. 364 (App. Div. 2021). As the years unfolded—and even after the decision in Temple—it became clearer that the burden on a movant remained, well, unclear. Fortunately, the New Jersey Supreme Court has now provided guidance on how trial courts must approach cohabitation motions.