Does Spousal Maintenance End Automatically Upon Remarriage in Minnesota?

The assumption that spousal maintenance automatically ends when your ex-spouse remarries can be a costly mistake—one that left a Minnesota husband paying support for two additional years after his ex-wife’s wedding, despite his reasonable belief that his obligations had ended.

The Default Rule: Remarriage Usually Ends Maintenance

Under Minnesota law, the general principle is straightforward: spousal maintenance typically ends when the receiving spouse remarries. Minnesota Statutes § 518A.39 establishes this rule clearly, providing that spousal maintenance ends upon the receiving spouse’s remarriage or the death of either party. This statutory framework reflects the common-sense notion that when someone remarries, they gain access to new sources of financial support and their need for maintenance from their former spouse should end.

For most divorced couples, this rule provides predictable closure. The paying spouse can plan for the eventual end of their maintenance obligations, while the receiving spouse understands that remarriage will affect their financial arrangements. This statutory default serves both practical and policy purposes—it prevents people from collecting maintenance from multiple sources simultaneously and encourages genuine efforts to achieve financial independence.

However, like many aspects of divorce law, this seemingly simple rule contains important exceptions that can dramatically alter the financial landscape for both parties. The key lies in understanding when and how these exceptions apply.

The Exception That Proves the Rule: When Maintenance Continues

The automatic termination rule isn’t absolute. If spousal maintenance is to continue beyond remarriage, there must be affirmative language in the decree extending the term. This exception recognizes that some divorce settlements involve unique circumstances where continued maintenance might be appropriate even after remarriage.

Such arrangements might arise when spousal maintenance serves purposes beyond simple financial support. For instance, if maintenance payments are structured to compensate for career sacrifices made during marriage, or if they represent a form of property division disguised as support for tax purposes, the parties might agree that remarriage shouldn’t end the obligation.

The critical requirement is explicit language in the divorce decree. Courts won’t infer an intention to continue maintenance beyond remarriage—the agreement must be clear and unambiguous. This requirement protects both parties by ensuring that such unusual arrangements are the result of deliberate negotiation rather than oversight or misunderstanding.

The Limits of Indefinite Maintenance: Poehls v. Poehls

The relationship between remarriage and maintenance termination became more complex in cases involving indefinite spousal maintenance. Some parties assumed that “indefinite” meant maintenance would continue regardless of circumstances, including remarriage. The Minnesota Court of Appeals clarified this misconception in Poehls* v. Poehls*.

In this case, the parties probably negotiated indefinite maintenance because they couldn’t predict when the receiving spouse might achieve financial independence. Rather than setting an arbitrary end date, they agreed to ongoing support that could be modified as circumstances changed. This approach often makes sense when the receiving spouse needs time to develop career skills or when future financial needs are uncertain.

However, when the receiving spouse in Poehls remarried, a question arose about whether indefinite maintenance meant maintenance that continued even after remarriage. The Court of Appeals answered definitively: “Indefinite spousal maintenance does not allow for spousal maintenance beyond remarriage.” Poehls v. Poehls, 502 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).

This decision established an important principle: the term “indefinite” refers to duration in the absence of statutory terminating events, not continuation despite those events. Indefinite maintenance means maintenance without a predetermined end date, but it still terminates when the statutory conditions—including remarriage—occur.

For the parties in Poehls, this ruling probably provided needed clarity. The paying spouse could rely on the statutory termination rules, while the receiving spouse understood that indefinite support didn’t mean unlimited support regardless of changed circumstances.

When Waivers Override Statutory Rules: Lewis v. Frane

The most dramatic illustration of how divorce agreements can override statutory termination rules came in Lewis* v. Frane*. This case demonstrates how sophisticated legal provisions intended to provide certainty can produce results that seem to contradict basic assumptions about spousal maintenance.

The Lewis couple had negotiated what appeared to be a straightforward arrangement: a four-year term of maintenance with a Karon waiver to prevent modifications. Mr. Lewis probably felt confident about his financial obligations—he would pay maintenance for exactly four years, with no possibility of extensions or increases due to the Karon waiver provisions.

Mrs. Lewis likely viewed the arrangement as providing security and predictability. The four-year term gave her time to achieve financial independence, while the Karon waiver protected her from potential reductions if Mr. Lewis’s circumstances changed. Both parties probably considered it a fair compromise that balanced their respective interests.

However, after two years, Mrs. Lewis remarried. From Mr. Lewis’s perspective, this should have ended his maintenance obligations immediately under the statutory rule. He had been paying support to help his ex-wife transition to independence, and her remarriage suggested she had achieved that goal through a new marriage partnership.

Mr. Lewis moved to terminate his spousal maintenance obligations, confident that remarriage would end his duty to pay. His motion was based on the seemingly clear statutory rule that maintenance ends upon remarriage. He probably expected a routine court order terminating his obligations and looked forward to the financial relief.

Instead, his motion was refused. The trial court’s denial probably came as a shock—how could remarriage not end spousal maintenance when the statute seemed so clear?

The Court of Appeals’ Analysis: When Waivers Trump Statutes

The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ decision in Lewis reveals the complex interplay between statutory rules and contractual agreements in divorce law. The court’s analysis focused on the specific language of the Karon waiver and its relationship to the remarriage termination rule.

The court noted that the Karon waiver language in the decree precluded all modification of spousal maintenance and did not except remarriage from this prohibition. This language was crucial—the waiver didn’t just prevent increases or decreases in maintenance amount, it prevented any modifications whatsoever, including termination for remarriage.

The appellate court’s reasoning was both legally sound and practically harsh for Mr. Lewis. The court read the Karon waiver as affirmative language in the decree extending the term beyond remarriage. In other words, by agreeing to a comprehensive Karon waiver, the parties had essentially contracted around the statutory termination rule.

Had the Karon waiver included language that spousal maintenance would terminate upon remarriage, the obligation would have terminated, but there was no such language. Lewis v. Frane, No. A16-1517, 2017 WL 4341886 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2017). This absence proved costly for Mr. Lewis, who continued paying maintenance for the full four-year term despite his ex-wife’s remarriage after only two years.

The Harsh Reality: Precision in Legal Language

The Lewis decision illustrates a fundamental principle in divorce law: the specific language of your agreement controls, even when it produces results that seem contrary to statutory defaults. Mr. Lewis probably never intended to pay maintenance after his ex-wife remarried, but his Karon waiver was so comprehensive that it overrode the statutory termination rule.

From Mrs. Lewis’s perspective, the court’s decision honored the agreement she had negotiated. She had accepted a Karon waiver that prevented her from seeking increases in maintenance, and in return, she received protection against premature termination. The court’s decision enforced this bargain exactly as written.

The tragedy for Mr. Lewis was that a provision intended to provide certainty—the Karon waiver—became the very mechanism that forced him to continue payments he never expected to make. His attempt to secure predictability in his maintenance obligations backfired when the comprehensive waiver language prevented him from invoking the statutory termination rule.

Lessons for Drafting Effective Agreements

The Lewis case provides crucial guidance for anyone negotiating spousal maintenance agreements in Minnesota:

Be explicit about termination events. If you want maintenance to end upon remarriage, state that explicitly in your agreement, even if you believe statutory law provides this protection. Don’t assume that statutory defaults will override comprehensive waiver language.

Consider the scope of modification waivers carefully. Broad language that prevents “all modifications” might prevent beneficial terminations as well as unwanted increases. Consider whether you want to preserve some flexibility for statutory termination events.

Address remarriage specifically in Karon waivers. If you’re including a Karon waiver, decide whether you want the statutory remarriage termination rule to apply and state your intention clearly.

Think through unintended consequences. Consider how different provisions in your agreement might interact to produce unexpected results. What seems like protective language might become a trap if not carefully drafted.

The Policy Implications: Balancing Contract and Statute

The Lewis decision raises interesting questions about the relationship between contractual freedom and statutory policy in divorce law. Minnesota’s remarriage termination rule reflects a policy judgment that spousal maintenance should end when the recipient gains access to new sources of support through remarriage.

However, the Lewis court honored the parties’ contractual agreement even when it seemed to contradict this policy. This approach respects party autonomy and the principle that people should be held to their agreements, but it can produce results that seem inconsistent with the underlying purposes of spousal maintenance.

The tension between these principles highlights the importance of careful drafting. When parties contract around statutory rules, they must do so clearly and with full understanding of the consequences.

Practical Guidance for Your Divorce

Understanding the relationship between remarriage and spousal maintenance termination requires careful attention to both statutory rules and specific agreement language:

Know the default rule. Under Minnesota Statutes § 518A.39, spousal maintenance generally ends upon the receiving spouse’s remarriage. This provides the baseline for your negotiations.

Decide whether you want different terms. If you have reasons to continue or guarantee termination of maintenance upon remarriage, address this explicitly in your agreement.

Draft modification waivers carefully. If you’re including Karon waiver language, consider whether you want to preserve statutory termination events or override them entirely.

Consider future scenarios. Think about how remarriage might affect your financial circumstances and whether the statutory rule serves your interests or whether you need different terms.

The Bottom Line: Assumptions Can Be Expensive

The assumption that spousal maintenance automatically ends upon remarriage is generally correct under Minnesota law, but the Lewis case demonstrates that comprehensive agreement language can override this default rule. Mr. Lewis’s expensive lesson reminds us that in divorce law, assumptions based on “common sense” or general statutory rules can be dangerous when they conflict with specific contractual language.

The safest approach is explicit agreement about all termination events, including remarriage. Whether you’re seeking to ensure termination upon remarriage or to prevent it, clear language in your divorce decree will eliminate uncertainty and prevent expensive litigation years later.

The interplay between Minnesota Statutes § 518A.39 and contractual modification waivers creates a complex legal landscape where careful drafting is essential. By understanding both the statutory defaults and the potential for contractual modifications, you can structure your spousal maintenance agreement to achieve your actual intentions rather than falling victim to unintended consequences.

📚 Citations

• Minnesota Statutes § 518A.39 (2025) (providing that spousal maintenance ends upon the receiving spouse’s remarriage or the death of either party, unless the decree contains affirmative language extending the term beyond remarriage)
• Lewis v. Frane, No. A16-1517, 2017 WL 4341886 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2017) (holding that comprehensive Karon waiver language preventing all modifications to spousal maintenance overrode the statutory rule terminating maintenance upon remarriage, requiring continued payments for the full four-year term despite the wife’s remarriage after two years)
• Poehls v. Poehls, 502 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (clarifying that indefinite spousal maintenance does not continue beyond remarriage despite the absence of a predetermined end date, as “indefinite” refers to duration absent statutory terminating events rather than continuation despite those events)

*The identities of these parties and facts of their matter were publicly published and thus not confidential. While the case holdings and statutory references are accurate, creative liberty has been imposed for the emotional portrayal of the parties.