Court Opinion

ID: 9752087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:34:04.817909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:06.633575
License: Public Domain

CLIFFORD, Justice,
with whom ROBERTS, Justice, joins, dissenting.
I agree with the court that because the District Court impermissibly relied in part on matters not related to whether there was a substantial change in circumstances, its order amending the divorce judgment must be vacated. I disagree, however, that there was so little evidence of a change of *1166circumstances that no change in alimony is supportable as a matter of law.
Although Mrs. Haag’s involvement in a relationship similar to that of a marriage does not prima facie require that alimony be terminated, the evidence that her living expenses were substantially reduced can, in and of itself, constitute a substantial change of circumstances. Williams v. Williams, 444 A.2d 977, 980 (Me.1982). That the original divorce court declined to include a provision automatically terminating alimony upon cohabitation does not mean that a substantial reduction in the financial needs of Mrs. Haag resulting from such a relationship cannot be considered by the court as a change of circumstances. See Jacobs v. Jacobs, 507 A.2d 596, 601 (Me.1986). That, coupled with the substantially increased expenses of Mr. Haag, might not compel, but in my view, would permit the trial court to consider some reduction in alimony.
I would remand to the District Court for reconsideration of the motion based on the relevant and permissible evidence.