Opinion ID: 2554333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Amending the Term of the Spousal Support Award

Text: [¶ 26] In her cross-appeal, Linda argues that the court could not amend the term of the spousal support obligation on the parties' cross-motions for further findings of fact and to amend the judgment when neither party requested such an amendment. She also contends that the amendment was an abuse of discretion. [¶ 27] Contrary to Linda's contention, we have held that, upon a motion made pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 59(e) a court is not restricted to making only those changes requested by the moving party. Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250, 259 (Me.1984). The court may substantively amend its initial order both as requested and on its own initiative. Id. Here, considering the financial circumstances of the parties and the distribution of a greater share of the marital property to Linda, the court acted within its discretion in amending the spousal support obligation from an indefinite term to a fixed term. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.