Can Spousal Maintenance Be Awarded If There Are Not Sufficient Assets to Support a Spouse?

When a marriage ends, the court faces a delicate question: Will one spouse have enough to live on? This is the heart of spousal maintenance in Minnesota, and as the case law shows, the answer isn’t always obvious.

Under Minnesota Statutes section 518.552, subdivision 1, the court may grant a maintenance order for either spouse. This word—may—carries weight. It signals that maintenance is not automatic. The spouse seeking support must first show that they cannot meet their reasonable needs either because they lack sufficient property or are unable to earn enough to support themselves—even with training or education. But even that threshold depends on the definition of “support,” and more importantly, what kind of property must be used to meet those needs.

Fink v. Fink: Only income from assets should be considered

When Barbara and Steven Fink divorced, Barbara may have felt uncertain about her future. After years of marriage, the security she’d relied on was gone. She was awarded a portfolio of assets—but not a job or steady income. The trial court initially denied her spousal maintenance, reasoning that she could just use the property she received in the divorce to meet her needs.

But on appeal, the appellate court was reminded something deeper. A spouse is not required to spend down the principal of their property just to meet daily expenses. Only the income from assets and not the assets themselves are typically considered when evaluating whether someone needs spousal maintenance. Barbara wasn’t expected to liquidate her future just to survive her present. The court’s decision offered her dignity, not just dollars.

Curtis v. Curtis and Flynn v. Flynn: Liquidation of the marital home is not required

In Curtis, Susan Curtis had lived in the family home for decades. It was more than an asset—it was her anchor. After the divorce, her husband argued that she could simply sell the house to support herself. But the Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed. A spouse is not required to liquidate assets such as a home to meet their needs. This holding echoed the earlier case of Flynn v. Flynn, where the Court of Appeals had likewise concluded that forcing a spouse to sell the home, especially one they were living in, was not a requirement under the law.

For Susan—and for many spouses in similar shoes—the ruling meant she wouldn’t have to choose between stability and solvency. She could stay in her home without it being treated as cash in the bank.

Muschik v. Conner-Muschik: Assets can reduce needs when used wisely

Then came Muschik, a case that added complexity to the conversation. When Jennifer Muschik divorced her husband, she was awarded assets that could allow her to buy a home outright and avoid future mortgage payments. The court didn’t require her to liquidate those assets to live off the proceeds—but it did consider how those assets could reduce her future financial needs.

In other words, while a spouse isn’t required to spend down or sell their property, courts may consider how asset use affects their ongoing expenses. If a lump sum allows someone to buy a house debt-free, that reduces what they need in monthly income—and therefore what maintenance might be justified.

This nuance reinforced the legal use of real-world practicality. Judges wouldn’t force people to burn through their savings, but they could still assess whether their financial picture, once settled, truly required support.

A Thread of Dignity and Discretion

Each of these cases tells a personal story of a spouse trying to land on solid ground after a marriage ends. One common thread runs through them all: spousal maintenance is about fairness, not dependency. The law respects a spouse’s right to hold on to their hard-earned property and not be penalized for having a roof over their head. But it also asks a practical question: Are support payments truly needed once all the facts are considered?

Minnesota courts apply a needs-based analysis guided by Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 1(a). They ask whether the spouse lacks sufficient property to support themselves at the marital standard of living. The cases show that:

• Spouses are not required to use the principal of property for support (Fink),
• They are not required to liquidate key assets like the marital home (Curtis, Flynn), but
• Courts can evaluate how using those assets may reduce future needs (Muschik).

This isn’t about formulas—it’s about discretion. Courts must weigh the facts, consider the individual’s future, and decide whether support is truly warranted. The law gives them that flexibility. And for divorcing spouses, that means outcomes aren’t dictated by spreadsheets alone—but also by human circumstances, thoughtfully considered.

Citations

• Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 1(a) (2024) – A court may grant spousal maintenance if a spouse lacks sufficient property to meet their reasonable needs, based on the marital standard of living.
• Fink v. Fink, 366 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (Only income from awarded assets is typically considered; the principal need not be spent).
• Curtis v. Curtis, 887 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. 2016) (Spouse not required to liquidate marital home to meet needs).
• Flynn v. Flynn, 402 N.W.2d 111 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (Liquidation of residence not required for support analysis).
• Muschik v. Conner-Muschik, 920 N.W.2d 215 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018) (Use of awarded assets to reduce future needs can be considered).