Court Opinion

ID: 9671024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:29:39.029565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:07.772058
License: Public Domain

BEILFUSS, C. J.
0concurring). I concur with the majority opinion insofar as it reverses and remands for further hearing. As I read the majority opinion, it re*200verses because the trial court discontinued maintenance payments to the former wife solely upon the ground of cohabitation with another man.
I adhere to our statement in Taake v. Taake, 70 Wis. 2d 115, 121, 233 N.W.2d 449 (1975), quoted by both the majority and the dissent. Cohabitation, even an unlimited cohabitation setting such as this is, in and of itself is not a sufficient groun,d for terminating all maintenance. However, if the financial relationships aré such that the divorced spouse’s financial living requirements are reduced or under the circumstances of the cohabitation they should, in good conscience, be reduced, it is entirely proper for the trial court to consider that fact in determining whether maintenance payments should be altered.