May, J.
Kevin Gertiser appeals the denial of his petition to terminate the spousal maintenance he pays to his ex-wife, Anne Stokes. Kevin asserts the court abused its discretion by continuing the spousal maintenance and by ordering him to pay Anne’s attorney fees. We reverse and remand.
….
The trial court declined to modify Kevin’s spousal maintenance order because Anne’s personal earning ability and incapacity had not improved since the divorce; thus, the court concluded, there had not been a significant change of circumstances that would make the original order unreasonable. The court also ordered Kevin to pay $7,000.00 towards Anne’s attorney fees.
….
Anne argues spousal maintenance is not automatically terminated upon her marriage. [Footnote omitted.] We agree. See Roberts v. Roberts, 644 N.E.2d 173 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (remarriage did not terminate spousal maintenance when the new spouse had no income with which to support person receiving maintenance). Nevertheless, we are left with the question whether Anne’s remarriage creates a substantial and continuing change of circumstances such that the terms of the original order have become unreasonable. Ind. Code § 31-15-7-3(1).
….
Although the trial court is correct that Anne’s ability to earn income has not changed, the court abused its discretion by denying Kevin’s petition to terminate spousal maintenance because it did not consider the substantial income and assets now available to Anne pursuant to her marriage to Paul. Accordingly, the trial court should have terminated the spousal maintenance. Additionally, following the statutes regarding modification of child support, modification may be retroactive to the date of filing the petition. See Ind. Code § 31-16-8-1 (states the circumstances wherein such an order may be modified). See also Ind. Code § 31-16-16-6(b)(1) (a court may modify an obligor’s duty to pay after notice of the petition has been served). [Footnote omitted.]
….
Reversed and remanded.
VAIDIK, C.J., and FRIEDLANDER, J., concur.