Amero v. Amero, 149 A.3d 535

Mark and Maria Amero divorced in 2006; judgment awarded Maria $1,100/month spousal support that "shall terminate ... upon the defendant’s remarriage or cohabitation with an adult partner," subject to a three-year minimum.
In April 2015 Mark moved to modify/terminate support, alleging Maria was cohabiting with an adult partner; a hearing was held in November 2015 with only the parties testifying.
The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Maria had cohabited with an adult partner since about 2010 and terminated the spousal support; the court did not elaborate further or address alternative modification grounds.
Maria testified she began a year-long sexual relationship in 2010, lived with the partner in a truck for about a year, then in a condominium with the partner for three to four years, and currently lives in a condominium where they occupy separate floors but share a shower and perform caregiving and household tasks for one another.
Maria asserted separate living quarters, separate finances, and that the romantic relationship had ended; the trial court, as factfinder, discounted portions of her testimony.
Maria appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of cohabitation; the appellate court reviewed factual findings for clear error and the modification decision for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence that Maria cohabited with an adult partner such that the divorce judgment’s termination clause was triggered	Maria: Insufficient evidence; she maintains separate living quarters, finances, and no ongoing romantic relationship	Mark: Evidence of living together over multiple residences, shared household functions, financial interdependence, and a marriage-like relationship	Held: Sufficient competent evidence to support cohabitation finding; termination affirmed
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by terminating support without addressing statutory modification standards	Maria: Court should have applied statutory standard or made fuller findings	Mark: Termination proper under the divorce judgment’s plain language; statutory provision not implicated	Held: No abuse of discretion—judgment’s termination clause controlled; court did not need to invoke statute
Whether absence of specific findings (e.g., exact start date) requires reversal	Maria: Lack of precise findings undermines ruling	Mark: Any timing error is harmless given termination clause and three-year minimum	Held: Any error about start date harmless; termination need not be retroactive
Whether appellate court should overturn factual findings	Maria: Findings were clearly erroneous	Mark: Credibility determinations lie with trial court	Held: No clear error; appellate court defers to trial court credibility determinations

Violette v. Violette, 120 A.3d 667 (Maine 2015) (standard for clear-error review of factual findings)
Pettinelli v. Yost, 930 A.2d 1074 (Maine 2007) (modification of spousal support reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Charette v. Charette, 60 A.3d 1264 (Maine 2013) (defines cohabitation as the practical equivalent of marriage)
Wandishin v. Wandishin, 976 A.2d 949 (Maine 2009) (divorce orders need not further define cohabitation)
McLeod v. Macul, 139 A.3d 920 (Maine 2016) (assumption that trial court made necessary findings absent a Rule 52(b) motion, only to the extent supported by evidence)
Efstathiou v. Efstathiou, 982 A.2d 339 (Maine 2009) (factfinder may accept or reject portions of testimony)
Pelletier v. Pelletier, 36 A.3d 903 (Maine 2012) (credibility determinations are within the factfinder's authority)