## Facts

- E. Robert Taake and Barbara A. Taake divorced in 1966 after a marriage of about 12 years; they had three minor children (two biological and one adopted).
- The divorce judgment awarded Barbara custody, child support, specified property, and $200 per month alimony.
- In 1968, by stipulation, custody transferred to Robert and child support was deleted; the alimony obligation continued.
- Barbara sold the marital home, moved to Madison, and worked intermittently.
- In 1971 Barbara began living with Lyle Fink, a divorced man; they lived together first in her apartment and then in his newly purchased home, where they continued to reside at the time of a 1973 hearing.
- Barbara paid Fink $25 per month rent, contributed toward groceries, and performed some housework; she maintained a separate bedroom.
- The record indicated occasional sexual relations and that Barbara sometimes permitted others to call her “Mrs. Fink,” though she took no legal steps to marry him.
- After learning of the cohabitation, Robert stopped paying alimony and moved to amend the judgment.
- The circuit court found a “de facto marriage,” terminated future alimony, extinguished arrearages, and permanently barred Barbara from any future alimony from Robert.

## Issues

1. Whether continuous cohabitation with another man, labeled a “de facto marriage,” constitutes a substantial change in circumstances permitting prospective termination of alimony.
2. Whether a court may retroactively extinguish accrued alimony arrearages based on post-judgment cohabitation.
3. Whether a court may permanently bar any future alimony based on cohabitation.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the termination of future alimony.
- The court reversed the elimination of accrued alimony arrearages.
- The court reversed the order permanently barring Barbara from any future alimony.
- The order was modified and, as modified, affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Maintenance may be modified only upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances, evaluated primarily in financial terms.
- Cohabitation is not equivalent to remarriage and does not automatically terminate maintenance; it is relevant only to the extent it alters the recipient’s economic circumstances (e.g., reduced living expenses or shared support).
- Courts should not treat accrued, unpaid maintenance installments as subject to routine retroactive cancellation; arrearages generally vest as they accrue absent exceptional equitable grounds.
- A paying spouse’s unilateral cessation of maintenance does not eliminate obligations already accrued; the proper remedy is timely motion for prospective modification.
- A categorical, permanent bar on future maintenance exceeds the contemplated modification scheme because future changes in circumstances may warrant later adjustment.
- Maintenance is not a punitive device; moral disapproval of cohabitation is not a proper basis for modification apart from economic effect.

## Conclusion

Cohabitation may support prospective modification or termination of maintenance when it materially changes the recipient spouse’s economic need, but it does not justify retroactive cancellation of accrued arrears or an order permanently foreclosing future maintenance adjustments.


Taake v. Taake, 70 Wis. 2d 115, 233 N.W.2d 449 (Wis. 1975)