of remarriage is unavailing. The approach Yon urges is, quite simply, inconsistent with South Carolina jurisprudence. South Carolina’s consistent view of marriage as expressed in both its statutes and case law constrains us to adopt the void/voidable approach. While this approach may not permit the interposition of equitable defenses to thwart the reinstatement of alimony, an action to terminate or reduce that alimony obligation due to changed circumstances would be available to the former spouse. Palmer v. Palmer, 289 S.C. 216, 218, 345 S.E.2d 746, 748 (Ct.App.1986) (stating that when supported spouse’s new relationship changes her financial situation, supporting spouse’s alimony obligation may be terminated); Vance v. Vance, 287 S.C. 615, 618, 340 S.E.2d 554, 555 (Ct.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Although we adopt the void/voidable approach,
recognizing that recipient spouses improved financial security will support modification of maintenance award holding that whether a spouses employment termination benefit is separate or marital property is determined by whether the right to payment accrued during marriage recognizing that cohabitants owe no legal or financial support to one another holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability holding that living with another whether it is with a livein lover relative or platonic housemate changes the supported spouses circumstances and alters her required financial support