Mark A. Amero v. Maria C. Amero, 2016 ME 150

Mark and Maria Amero divorced in 2006; divorce judgment awarded Maria $1,100/month spousal support, terminable on Maria’s remarriage or cohabitation with an adult partner (subject to a three‑year minimum).
In 2015 Mark moved to modify/terminate support, alleging Maria was cohabiting with an adult partner; a District Court hearing was held with only the parties testifying.
The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Maria had cohabited with an adult partner since about 2010 and ordered termination of support per the divorce decree; the court did not analyze statutory modification grounds.
Maria testified she began a sexual relationship with the partner in 2010, lived with him in a truck for about a year, then in a condominium with him for several years, and now live in the same condominium with separate sleeping areas but shared space and caregiving and some financial interdependence.
Maria argued there was insufficient evidence of cohabitation; the trial court credited evidence of an ongoing, marriage‑like relationship and terminated support. Maria appealed.

Issue	Maria's Argument	Mark's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence that Maria was cohabiting with an adult partner so as to trigger termination under the divorce judgment	Insufficient evidence; relationship and living arrangements do not amount to marriage‑equivalent cohabitation	Evidence (shared residences over years, sexual relationship, caregiving, shared use of space, financial ties) shows a marriage‑like, cohabiting relationship	Court’s factual finding of cohabitation was supported by competent evidence and not clearly erroneous; termination affirmed
Whether terminating support on that basis was an abuse of discretion	Termination was improper absent sufficient factual basis	Termination followed plainly from the divorce judgment once cohabitation was found	No abuse of discretion; termination under the divorce judgment was appropriate

Violette v. Violette, 120 A.3d 667 (Me. 2015) (standard for clear‑error review of trial court factual findings)
Charette v. Charette, 60 A.3d 1264 (Me. 2013) (defines "cohabitation" as the practical equivalent of marriage)
Pettinelli v. Yost, 930 A.2d 1074 (Me. 2007) (appellate standard for abuse of discretion in modifying spousal support)
Wandishin v. Wandishin, 976 A.2d 949 (Me. 2009) (divorce orders need not further define "cohabitation")
Efstathiou v. Efstathiou, 982 A.2d 339 (Me. 2009) (fact‑finder may accept or reject portions of witness testimony)