That’s at least on reading of dicta from the Court of Appeals’ recent opinion in In re the Marriage of Thomas v. Thomas, A13-0905 (March 3, 2014):

Finally, we note that there is some expectancy that [Wife], at her young age, and without dependent children, would strive to become self-supporting. It is troubling that she works only a few hours a week for marginal pay and expects to live off her substantial maintenance award while she is still relatively young. Even more troubling is that [Wife] is in a serious, long-term relationship with her significant other, including cohabitation. But we conclude that under the current state of the law, and on this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying [Husband]’s motion to modify spousal-maintenance obligation at this time.

I’ve written about other states’ efforts to amend their spousal maintenance (alimony) statutes in a prior post. And while I didn’t (and still don’t) see spousal maintenance reform coming to Minnesota this legislative session, the landscape on this issue seems to be changing quickly.

More about this case–and several others–in Friday’s Case Law Round-Up.

Print Friendly
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page