Can Cohabitation Be a Basis to Modify Spousal Maintenance in Minnesota?

When a former spouse moves in with a new partner, it can stir up strong emotions—and raise difficult legal questions. For those paying spousal maintenance, cohabitation may seem like a signal that support should end. But in Minnesota, it’s not that simple.

The law does allow for modification of spousal maintenance when cohabitation occurs, but only under specific circumstances. It’s not just who someone lives with—it’s how that relationship affects their financial situation. Understanding the nuance behind the law can help divorcing spouses, especially payors, avoid assumptions that lead to frustration—or unfair outcomes.

From Frustration to Formality: Bateman v. Bateman

Back in the 1980s, before Minnesota had a specific statute addressing cohabitation, courts had to grapple with the concept through general modification rules. That was the case in Bateman v. Bateman, where Mark* Bateman sought to end his spousal maintenance obligation after learning that his ex-wife had moved in with her new partner.

Mark believed the financial help his ex-wife received from her boyfriend—rent contributions, shared groceries—meant she no longer needed support. But the court required more than assumption or general frustration. It held that cohabitation may justify modification if it “reduces the obligee’s need for maintenance,” but warned that the proof must show a real and material change in circumstances. (382 N.W.2d 240, 243 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).)

Because the original divorce decree lacked clear language about cohabitation or what would trigger a termination of support, the court declined to end maintenance without stronger financial evidence.

A Clearer Legal Standard: Minn. Stat. § 518.552, Subd. 6

Fast forward to 2016, when the Minnesota Legislature stepped in to clarify the issue. Lawmakers amended the spousal maintenance statute to add a specific provision addressing cohabitation. Under Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6 (2024), cohabitation with another adult may serve as a basis to modify spousal maintenance—but only if certain conditions are met.

The statute requires a judge to consider whether:

• The obligee is sharing household expenses with the other adult
• The relationship is long-term or stable
• The cohabitation has changed the obligee’s financial need

In other words, cohabitation alone is not enough. There must also be evidence that the new living arrangement makes continued support unreasonable or unfair.

A High Standard of Proof: Helms, Sinda, and Reppe

This heightened scrutiny was emphasized in Helms v. Helms, where the Minnesota Court of Appeals reiterated that cohabitation “is one criterion that constitutes a change in circumstances, but the analysis does not end there.” (No. A17-0854, 2017 WL 5661591, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2017).)

The court refused to terminate spousal maintenance without proof that the ex-wife’s shared household arrangement actually reduced her financial need. In that case, the boyfriend wasn’t paying the mortgage or other significant bills. So despite the optics, the court found that support remained necessary.

In more recent decisions like Sinda v. Sinda, the courts further affirmed this high threshold. The Court of Appeals emphasized that “the standard of proof is not met simply by showing that the obligee is cohabiting.” (949 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Minn. Ct. App. 2020).)

In Reppe v. Reppe, the payor spouse similarly failed to show that the ex-wife’s financial needs had diminished due to her living arrangement. The court found that while she shared a home, she was still responsible for most household expenses—and still dependent on the support order. (No. A20-0464, 2021 WL 1962539, at *4 (Minn. Ct. App. May 17, 2021).)

What This Means for You

If you’re the paying spouse and you learn that your former partner is living with someone new, it’s understandable to question whether your financial support is still necessary. But don’t assume the court will terminate support based solely on that fact.

You’ll need to demonstrate:

• A substantial change in circumstances caused by the cohabitation
• That the obligee’s financial need has decreased due to shared expenses or support from the new partner
• That continued maintenance is unreasonable or unfair under the new facts

Conversely, if you are the receiving spouse and living with someone, your financial transparency will be key. The court will examine not just the relationship, but the economic impact of that living situation.

Final Thoughts

Cohabitation can change the financial landscape—but only if it affects the underlying purpose of spousal maintenance. Judges want clarity, not conjecture. If you’re dealing with this issue, it may be wise to consult with legal counsel early on—whether to draft strong language in your decree or to prepare the evidence necessary for a modification motion.

📚 Citations:

• Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6 (2024). – (Provides that cohabitation may justify modification of spousal maintenance if it changes the financial needs of the obligee.)
• Bateman v. Bateman, 382 N.W.2d 240, 243 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). – (Cohabitation can warrant maintenance modification, but only if it materially reduces the obligee’s need for support.)
• Helms v. Helms, No. A17-0854, 2017 WL 5661591, at 2 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2017). – (Cohabitation is a factor, but courts require proof of financial impact to support modification.)
• Sinda v. Sinda, 949 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Minn. Ct. App. 2020). – (Evidence of cohabitation must still meet the high threshold of showing reduced financial need.)
• Reppe v. Reppe, No. A20-0464, 2021 WL 1962539, at 4 (Minn. Ct. App. May 17, 2021). – (Maintenance not modified because cohabitation did not materially reduce obligee’s expenses.)

*The identities of these parties and facts of their matter were publicly published and thus not confidential. While the case holding and statutory references are accurate, creative liberty has been imposed for the emotional portrayal of the parties.