that, on remand, the trial court could consider house maintenance and repairs performed by wife’s cohabitant, as well as “any other reductions in wife’s household expenses, or expenditures she incurs by the addition of [the cohabitant] to her household” to determine to what extent, if any, wife’s spousal maintenance should be reduced. Id. at 1384. ¶ 47. In Lombardo v. Lombardo, 992 S.W.2d 919, 923 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999), another case cited by the majority, the court recognized that “trial courts should be allowed to take into account the third party’s support of the receiving spouse, and the receiving spouse contributions to the support of the third party” in determining whether a cohabitation arrangement has resulted in a substantial and continuing economic change of circumst Wis. 1983) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 48. Here, the trial court acted within its
recognizing that where cohabiting couple share expenses it may be appropriate to decrease or terminate maintenance payments because under some circumstances two people living together can live more cheaply than if they lived separately but noting that certain living expenses such as rent would in many cases be the same whether the recipient spouse lived alone or not holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid recognizing that sharing of household expenses may produce some measure of financial improvement but holding that this improvement alone cannot be changed circumstances unless court is prepared to hold that former spouse who takes in a roommate to reduce expenses will similarly lose such savings because of an offsetting reduction in maintenance holding that necessary expenses such as living expenses are not considered a squandering or secreting of marital property such that reimbursement or a setoff should be ordered holding that in an agreement where the father agreed to pay reasonable expenses to the extent that such expenses are not provided by any scholarship grant or other assistance for his sons education those expenses did not include loan repayment because it was not one of the forms of enumerated assistance