Victoria S. Savage v. Steven B. Savage, 2017 ME 47

Parties divorced in 2008 by agreement; judgment required Steven to pay Victoria $3,000/month spousal support until he turned 60, then $1/year thereafter.
A federal law increasing the employer’s mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65 had taken effect shortly before entry of the divorce judgment; Victoria believed at the time the judgment that Steven would be required to retire at 60 and did not learn of the change until afterward.
Steven continued working past age 60 and remained employed at the time of the modification hearing.
Victoria moved to modify spousal support under 19-A M.R.S. § 951-A(4), arguing the change in mandatory retirement age was a substantial change in circumstances.
The District Court found the parties had reasonably anticipated retirement at age 60 when the decree was entered, admitted Victoria’s evidence of that expectation, and modified the award to maintain the $3,000 monthly support obligation until Steven turns 65.
Steven appealed; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Victoria)	Defendant's Argument (Steven)	Held
Admissibility of Victoria’s testimony about her expectation that Steven would retire at 60	Testimony is relevant to what the parties and court foresaw when setting support	Testimony was irrelevant and should be excluded	Court properly admitted the evidence; expectation is relevant to baseline foreseeability
Whether change in mandatory retirement age constitutes a "substantial change in circumstances"	Change to mandatory retirement age is a substantial, unforeseen change from the baseline (retirement at 60)	Continuing employment past 60 is not a substantial change given the federal law predated the decree or was foreseeable	Court held the change was substantial because the decree tied reduction to the 60th birthday and parties reasonably expected retirement at 60
Whether continuing $3,000/month support until age 65 was an appropriate modification	Maintaining prior support amount until 65 remedies the changed circumstances	Modification was improper or excessive	Court did not abuse discretion by extending the prior monthly amount until Steven turns 65

Voter v. Voter, 109 A.3d 626 (Me. 2015) (modification requires substantial change in financial condition)
Gordon v. Cheskin, 82 A.3d 1221 (Me. 2013) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
Klopp v. Klopp, 598 A.2d 462 (Me. 1991) (baseline for modification is what circumstances the court reasonably foresaw when setting alimony)