see Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 257 (9th ed. 1986); see also Black's Law Dictionary 296 (9th ed. 2009) (defining the term "eohabitation" as "(tlhe fact or state of living together, esplecially] as partners in life, usu[ally] with the suggestion of sexual relations"). The inclusion of individuals who do not necessarily live together, such as anyone "related by blood or marriage," see Utah Code Ann. § 78B-7-102(2)(c), in the Cohabitant Abuse Act's definition of cohabitant is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the word. Thus, where the legislature has not specifically ascribed that definition to the term "cohabitant" as used in the context of defining a position of special trust, we do not presume that it intended to do so. Cf. Lowry v. G & L Enters., 2011 UT App 94, ¶ 12 (<HOLDING>). This is particularly true given that such an
holding that a broad statutory definition of a term that was inconsistent with the terms plain meaning did not affect the terms definition in other contexts recognizing that in the absence of a statutory definition statutory terms are construed in accordance with their ordinary or natural meaning recognizing that congress desired a broad definition of a claim  holding that in the absence of a statutory definition a term should be accorded its ordinary meaning holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision