unfounded considerations or to an extent clearly unreasonable in light of the evidence.” Taylor v. Taylor, 175 Vt. 32, 36, 819 A.2d 684, 688 (2003). By concluding that the sharing of household expenses, in addition to cohabitation, can never constitute changed circumstances, the majority deprives the family court of its ability to fully exercise its discretion in considering motions to modify. Specifically, in Smaller, I believe that the family court acted within its discretion in considering the significance of the “financial security” provided to wife by her cohabitation arrangement. See 15 V.S.A. § 752(b)(1) (requiring court, in fashioning maintenance award, to consider “financial resources” of party seeking maintenance, among other factors); Taylor, 175 Vt. at 39, 819 A.2d at 690 (<HOLDING>); Bullard v. Bullard, 144 Vt. 627, 629, 481
holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability holding that attorneys fees were nondischargeable as maintenance even though award was in favor of attorneys not spouse because it was rendered in light of the financial resources of the parties recognizing that recipient spouses improved financial security will support modification of maintenance award recognizing that family court cannot eliminate compensatory part of maintenance award holding that denial of petition for modification of maintenance was proper when the parties agreement prohibited modification of maintenance