Protecting Her Future: June’s Stand for Financial Security

A Narrative Story of Abbott v. Abbott, 282 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. 1979)

June Abbott* felt her heart sink when she received the court papers. After twelve years of receiving the $500 monthly alimony that helped her survive, her ex-husband, Lowell, wanted to cut it off completely. His reason? She had been living with Donald Bock, a kind widower she’d met in 1973, for over a year now. The anxiety was overwhelming—at her age, having never worked during her marriage to Lowell, how would she support herself if the court agreed with him?

June and Lowell had divorced in 1967 after nine years of marriage. She had received the family home, a lake cottage, and monthly support that was meant to help her rebuild her life. Over the years, she had sold the cottage and eventually the house, using the proceeds wisely to invest in a new property with Donald. They shared expenses fairly, maintained separate finances, and had built a respectful partnership—but they weren’t married.

When Lowell filed his petition in 1977, June felt a familiar fear creep in. Would the court punish her for finding companionship? Would they assume that because she lived with someone, she no longer needed financial support? The legal system felt intimidating, and she worried that her choice to cohabitate would be seen as grounds to strip away her financial security.

As the case progressed, June experienced a growing sense of validation. The court recognized that while her living situation had created some financial benefits—Donald paid for heating and property taxes—this didn’t automatically eliminate her need for support. More importantly, the court understood that her relationship with Donald, while meaningful to her personally, didn’t create the same legal obligations that marriage would.

When the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision, June felt a profound sense of relief and empowerment. The court ruled that cohabitation alone could not terminate alimony. Instead, courts must carefully examine the actual financial impact of such relationships. The justices recognized that unmarried partners have no legal duty to support each other, making these arrangements inherently less secure than marriage.

While the court did find that some modification might be appropriate based on her reduced housing costs, June felt vindicated that her right to companionship wouldn’t automatically cost her the financial stability she needed to maintain her independence.

*This story is based on the true facts of the appellate court’s decision, but the personal experiences and emotions described are a fictional representation to bring the case to life.

Question: Does spousal maintenance end if the recipient moves in with someone else but doesn’t marry them?

Answer: Living with someone can be grounds to change alimony payments, especially if that person helps pay your bills and reduces your expenses. However, just living together isn’t enough – the court needs proof that your financial situation has actually changed in a way that makes the current alimony unfair.

The receiving spouse’s cohabitation with another adult can justify modifying spousal maintenance, especially when the third party contributes to and thereby reduces the receiving spouse’s expenses. Proof can be difficult, but agreement provisions tailored to specific circumstances may be enforceable if they are drafted narrowly, as in Bateman v. Bateman, 382 N.W.2d 240 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). In 2016, the legislature added cohabitation as an express basis for modification in Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6. Mere cohabitation, however, is not enough. A modification also requires proof of at least one of the factors listed in subdivision 6. Helms v. Helms, No. A17-0854, 2017 WL 5661591 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2017), explains that while cohabitation can constitute a change in circumstances, it does not by itself establish that the existing award is unreasonable and unfair.

Question: How hard is it to prove that someone living together should have their alimony changed?

Answer: Courts require strong evidence to change alimony based on living together. The person asking for the change must prove that the living situation makes the current alimony payments unfair, which can be very difficult to do.

Courts have applied a high standard of proof in many cohabitation-based modification cases. In Sinda v. Sinda, 949 N.W.2d 170 (Minn. Ct. App. 2020), and Reppe v. Reppe, No. A20-0464, 2021 WL 1962539 (Minn. Ct. App. May 17, 2021), requests failed where the moving party did not establish that the circumstances of the cohabitation made the current award unreasonable and unfair under the statute. Even when parties include contractual cohabitation clauses, courts still assess the statutory factors adopted in 2016 to determine whether a modification is warranted.

Question: Should I include a clause in my divorce agreement about what happens if my ex moves in with someone?

Answer: These clauses are uncommon and can be hard to write and enforce properly. They often cause disagreements and many people receiving alimony won’t agree to them, so you should carefully consider if it’s worth the trouble and cost.

Paying spouses often want cohabitation clauses in maintenance agreements, but these provisions remain relatively rare, are difficult to draft and enforce, and are frequently unacceptable to the receiving spouse, creating conflict. Clients should understand the cost–benefit of pursuing such clauses in light of Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6. If included, the provision should be drafted narrowly with objective triggers and consequences aligned with the statutory factors to improve enforceability and reduce disputes.