Well...isn't that special. In order for the judge to arrive at this conclusion, there has to be objective data that he was buying her a shitload of things, consistently, for years. Meaning, she was a gold digger. When he wizened up, he didn't use a cooling off period where he stopped buying her things. He probably tried to break it off abruptly and didn't consider "spousal support" (it feels dirty even typing that) being a problem because they weren't married or living together. This situation doesn't even fit the definition of common law marriage. Still feels rather contrived to make him pay "alimony."