[U] Croake V. Croake

¶1 Paul Croake appeals an order denying his motion to terminate his maintenance obligation or, alternatively, to modify the formula by which it is set. Paul's arguments fall into the following categories: (1) the court erred when it determined he failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances because his income decreased, Mary Jo Croake's income increased, and the court failed to properly consider the parties' expenses; (2) the court was without jurisdiction to adjust the calculation of Mary Jo's net income; and (3) the court erroneously denied admission of a trade publication into evidence. We reject his arguments and affirm the order.