This majority rule is essentially the rule we have adopted for remarriage as explained in Taylor. Thus, it is entirely consistent with our current law and creates no disincentive to remarriage, a concern in states where remarriage results automatically in the termination of maintenance. We adopt the majority rule for cohabitation situations. ¶ 19. In doing so, we particularly note the cautionary words of the North Dakota Supreme Court in Cermak v. Cermak, 1997 ND 187, ¶ 10, 569 N.W.2d 280: The length of [the recipient spouse’s] relationship is unknown; it may last until her death, or may sour tomorrow. On this record, any support [she] may receive from her cohabitant is provided from his benevolence and comes with no reciprocal or continuing obligation. See also Gilman, 956 P.2d at 765 (<HOLDING>). As the Kentucky Supreme Court explained, we
recognizing that cohabitation may reduce the need for spousal support because sharing a household gives rise to economies of scale and more importantly the cohabitants income may be available to the recipient spouse recognizing that cohabitants owe no legal or financial support to one another recognizing that as with tax rates no one has a legal right to the maintenance of an existing rate or duty holding party must support argument with legal authority holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability