Diane L. Charette v. Dale N. Charette, 2013 ME 4

Diane L. Charette and Dale N. Charette married in 1980 and divorced in 2007; the divorce judgment incorporated a settlement requiring Dale to pay Diane $200 per week in general spousal support, subject to future judicial review but not to increase.
In July 2010 Dale moved to modify the judgment to reduce or eliminate spousal support, citing disability and Diane’s cohabitation with a boyfriend as reducing Diane’s need for support.
A March 18, 2011 order reduced Dale’s spousal support to $165 per week after finding a significant change in Dale’s medical circumstances but no evidence that Diane’s cohabitation affected her need.
In September 2011 Diane moved to enforce, alleging five missed payments; Dale concurrently moved again to modify on grounds raised previously.
On January 23, 2012 a contested hearing denied further modification and found Dale in contempt for a $3,990 arrearage; he was ordered to pay arrearages and future amounts, subject to further proceedings.
Dale appealed; the District Court issued further findings, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, addressing both the modification and contempt rulings and discussing alleged judicial bias.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification of spousal support.	Charette	Charette	No reversible error; no additional substantial change found; maintien of $165/week awarded.
Whether Diane’s cohabitation constitutes a change in circumstances warranting reduction of support.	Charette argued ongoing cohabitation justified further reduction.	Charette contends cohabitation created financial burden on Diane.	Court did not abuse discretion; cohabitation not a financial arrangement altering need; no further reduction warranted.
Whether Dale had the ability to continue paying spousal support as ordered.	Charette	Charette	Factual finding that Dale could pay $165/week not clearly erroneous; ability to pay arrearage supported.
Whether Dale was properly found in contempt for arrears and nonpayment.	Charette	Charette	Evidence showed past and present ability to comply; contempt affirmed and arrearage enforceable.
Whether the trial judge should be recused for alleged bias post-judgment.	Charette argued the judge had undisclosed personal connections and bias.	Charette asserted potential bias; judge addressed concerns and denied recusal.	No error in denial of recusal; court appropriately addressed bias concerns and provided transparent explanation.

Day v. Day, 1998 ME 194 (Me. 1998) (substantial change in financial condition standard for modifying spousal support)
Levy, Maine Family Law, 8.4 (Me. 2010) (textual guidance on cohabitation and support equivalence)
Harmon v. Harmon, 2009 ME 2 (Me. 2009) (consideration of whether recipient shares expenses with another person)
Haag v. Haag, 609 A.2d 1165 (Me. 1992) (cohabitation as a factor in modification; no automatic result)
McAllister v. McAllister, 2011 ME 69 (Me. 2011) (weight of evidence and credibility as trial function; standard of review on modifications)
In re Jacob B., 2008 ME 168 (Me. 2008) (post-judgment findings are sufficient if supported by record)
State v. Atwood, 2010 ME 12 (Me. 2010) (judicial conduct and recusal standards; diligence in disclosure)
In re Kaitlyn P., 2011 ME 19 (Me. 2011) (waiver of recusal rights when motion made post-judgment)
DeCambra v. Carson, 2008 ME 127 (Me. 2008) (recusal standards and impartiality decisions)