with her rent-free, even though he was working full-time, simply because she did not want her maintenance award to be modified. The court explained that wife could choose not to have Mr. Garland pay for half of the rent or the utilities, but it was unfair to make husband pay for wife’s decision. It therefore reduced husband’s maintenance obligation by $350, which was approximately half of the rent and the utilities. ¶43. The majority holds that the family court erred in finding changed circumstances because the family court’s conclusion rested on its sense of injustice rather than any substantial change. According to the majority, any financial savings that a recipient spouse realizes from the sharing of household expenses alone cannot constitute changed circumstances. See ante, ¶ 20 (<HOLDING>). The majority thus concludes in Smaller that,
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 debtors have the burden of proving that other necessary expenses on form b22c are actual reasonable and necessary expenses and that these expenses should be considered in light of schedule j and other relevant evidence 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 importance of itemizing promotional expenses because not all such expenses contribute to the creation of secondary meaning