With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. The Nevada Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Gilman v. Gilman, another case on which the majority relies. 956 P.2d 761, 764 (Nev. 1998) (explaining that those courts who have adopted the majority rule in cohabitation cases “hold that alimony payments used to benefit the cohabitant should be eliminated or reduced to meet the recipient spouse’s actual needs”). The Gilman court recognized the “economies of scale” that can result from cohabitation, and it emphasized that the “economic needs” test that it adopted allowed the “lower courts to focus upon the specific facts of each case, while retaining their substantial discretion when making spousal support modification decisions.” Id. at 765-66; see also In re Marriage of Schroeder, 238 Cal. Rptr. 12, 15 (Ct. App. 1987) (<HOLDING>); Van Gorder v. Van Gorder, 327 N.W.2d 674, 679

A: recognizing that cohabitants owe no legal or financial support to one another
B: holding that although cohabitation is not in itself the de facto equivalent of marriage that would warrant modification of spousal maintenance all evidence relating to the economic nature of the relationship between wife and cohabitant would be relevant and admissible to show that wifes support needs have changed
C: recognizing that cohabitation may reduce the need for spousal support because sharing a household gives rise to economies of scale and more importantly the cohabitants income may be available to the recipient spouse
D: holding that payments in the nature of support need not be made directly to the spouse or dependent to be nondischargeable
C.