Finding Balance: When the Court Recognizes Real Need

A Narrative Story of In re Marriage of Dobrin v. Dobrin, 565 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. 1997)

Dale Thomas Dobrin* stared at the court papers in disbelief. After years of legal battles, the Minnesota Supreme Court had finally brought clarity to his case—and the ruling felt like a breath of fresh air. The court had recognized what he’d been arguing all along: that indefinite spousal maintenance wasn’t appropriate in every situation, even when someone was temporarily struggling to find work.

Dale’s marriage to Mary Louise Dobrin* had lasted only two and a half years, from September 1989 to January 1992. Despite their brief union, Mary had sought spousal maintenance after their divorce, claiming she couldn’t support herself adequately. What frustrated Dale most was that Mary was highly educated and experienced—she held a nursing degree, a Pediatric Nurse Associate Certificate, and a Master’s of Public Health degree from the University of Minnesota.

“I felt like the system was being unfair,” Dale later reflected. “Mary had voluntarily left her $48,000-a-year position as Coordinator for the Peer Assistance Program for Nurses in June 1990. She had the education, the experience, and the ability to work, but she simply wasn’t making a serious effort to find employment.”

The initial trial court had agreed with Dale, denying Mary’s request for spousal maintenance. The judge found that given the short duration of their marriage and Mary’s training and job experience, no spousal maintenance was appropriate. Dale felt validated by this decision—it seemed fair and reasonable.

But then the Court of Appeals overturned that decision, not only awarding Mary spousal maintenance but making it indefinite. Dale watched in frustration as the case was sent back to the trial court, where a different judge awarded Mary $2,975 per month in indefinite spousal maintenance.

“I couldn’t believe it,” Dale said. “The appeals court had essentially shifted the burden onto me. Now, if I ever wanted to stop paying, I would have to prove that Mary’s circumstances had substantially changed. But if she chose not to look for work, how could I ever prove that?”

What troubled Dale most was the timeline. Mary had resigned from her job in June 1990, filed for divorce in January 1992, but didn’t begin actively searching for work until May 1993—just one month before their trial. Even then, her job search seemed minimal: she attended one job fair, spoke to some nursing contacts, and applied for only three positions.

“It felt like she was being rewarded for not trying,” Dale explained. “Meanwhile, I was being penalized with a indefinite financial obligation based on a marriage that lasted less than three years.”

When Dale’s case reached the Minnesota Supreme Court, he felt a mixture of hope and anxiety. This was his final chance to have the situation reviewed by the state’s highest court. The justices would need to determine whether the lower courts had properly applied Minnesota’s spousal maintenance laws.

The Supreme Court’s decision brought Dale the relief he had been seeking for years. The justices recognized that the Court of Appeals had overstepped its bounds by reweighing the evidence and essentially usurping the trial court’s role. More importantly, they acknowledged that Mary’s minimal efforts to find employment didn’t justify a indefinite maintenance award.

“When I read the Supreme Court’s decision, I felt this incredible sense of validation,” Dale said. “The court understood that spousal maintenance should be based on genuine need and real efforts at self-sufficiency, not just on someone’s choice to remain unemployed.”

The Supreme Court modified the indefinite maintenance award to a transitional one—$2,975 per month for just one year. This gave Mary time to find suitable employment while recognizing that Dale shouldn’t bear a indefinite financial burden from such a brief marriage.

“The ruling felt fair and balanced,” Dale concluded. “It acknowledged that Mary might need some transitional support while getting back into the workforce, but it also recognized that indefinite maintenance wasn’t justified given our circumstances. Finally, the system worked the way it was supposed to.”

*This story is based on the true facts of the appellate court’s decision, but the personal experiences and emotions described are a fictional representation to bring the case to life.

Question: What do I need to prove to get spousal maintenance (alimony)?

Answer: The first step for every divorce litigant is to determine whether spousal maintenance is a potential issue. 

Minnesota Statutes section 518.552 governs spousal maintenance and provides the threshold test for answering this question. Under subdivision 1, spousal maintenance is appropriate if a spouse: (a) lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to the spouse, to provide for reasonable needs of the spouse considering the standard of living established during the marriage, especially, but not limited to, a period of training or education, or (b) is unable to provide adequate self-support, after considering the standard of living established during the marriage and all relevant circumstances, through appropriate employment, or is the custodian of a child whose condition or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the home. Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 1. Essentially, this means that a party must first demonstrate a need for spousal maintenance. The Minnesota Supreme Court established in 1973 that spousal maintenance is not a profit-sharing plan and is only appropriate if necessary to provide for a spouse’s needs. See Snyder v. Snyder, 212 N.W.2d 869, 875 (Minn. 1973). If there is a substantial income disparity between the parties, but they both have the ability to meet their reasonable needs, the spousal maintenance inquiry ends.

What information do courts need to determine if someone needs spousal maintenance?

Courts look at your income and ability to work, your work history and education compared to your spouse’s, your other financial resources, and your reasonable monthly expenses based on your marital lifestyle. Past marital problems usually don’t matter unless they affect these factors.

To determine whether there is a need for spousal maintenance, one must have a general understanding of the following: the potential obligee’s income or their ability to work, work history throughout the marriage, and educational background versus the same for their spouse; the potential obligee’s other financial resources (note, however that while income generated from liquid assets should be considered, “[c]ourts normally do not expect spouses to invade the principal of their investments to satisfy their monthly financial needs.” Fink v. Fink, 366 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)); and the potential obligee’s reasonable monthly needs, considering the marital standard of living. The statute also specifically states that marital misconduct cannot be considered unless it somehow has impacted the statutory factors. See Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2. This may seem rudimentary, but many potential obligors struggle with having to pay spousal maintenance if the dissolution is not their choice or if they have been “wronged.” Similarly, a potential recipient, who may resist returning to work if they blame the other party for the divorce, may have concerns about their future financial circumstances.

What factors do courts consider when deciding how much spousal maintenance to award and for how long?

Courts must consider eight specific factors including your financial resources, time needed for education or training, marital lifestyle, length of marriage, age and health of both spouses, and each spouse’s ability to pay. No single factor is more important than others.

If the question of need for spousal maintenance can be answered with a “yes” or a “maybe,” the next step is to consider the appropriate amount and duration of a spousal maintenance award. Minnesota Statutes section 518.552, subdivision 2 lists the following factors that the court must consider in making this determination: 

1. the financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to the party, and the party’s ability to meet needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party as custodian;
2. the time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment, and the probability, given the party’s age and skills, of completing education or training and becoming fully or partially self-supporting;
3. the standard of living established during the marriage and the extent to which the standard of living was funded by debt;
4. the duration of the marriage and the earnings, seniority, benefits, and other employment opportunities forgone by the spouse seeking maintenance to support the other spouse or children and the length of absence from employment and the extent to which any education, skills, or experience have become outmoded and earning capacity has become permanently diminished;
5. the age, and physical, mental, or chemical health of both spouses;
6. the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance;
7. the contribution of a spouse in furtherance of the other party’s employment or business; and
8. the need and ability of each spouse to prepare for retirement and the anticipated time of retirement. 

In determining the appropriate amount and duration of a spousal maintenance award, the court must consider each of these factors with no single factor being dispositive. See Broms v. Broms, 353 N.W.2d 135, 138 (Minn. 1984). However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has repeatedly distilled these factors into the simply stated task of balancing the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay. See Prahl v. Prahl, 627 N.W.2d 698, 702 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). On appeal, the district court’s application of these factors is reviewed based on an abuse of discretion standard. See Erlandson v. Erlandson, 318 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Minn. 1982).

How do courts determine the amount of spousal maintenance?

The amount is usually based on the difference between what you can reasonably earn and what you need to live on. Courts may require healthy people to work full-time and might start with higher payments that decrease over time as you get back into the workforce.

The appropriate amount of spousal maintenance is generally driven by the shortfall between the recipient’s expected income and the recipient’s reasonable needs. Both of these variables can present challenges. A recipient’s expected income is straightforward if they have been fully employed in traditional employment during the marriage and expect that to continue. However, if the recipient is not working or does not work full-time, the court may consider whether they are capable of employment, and if so, what a reasonable expectation for income will be. In Passolt v. Passolt, 804 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011), the court of appeals emphasized the requirement of considering a recipient’s ability to meet their needs independently, holding that a finding of bad faith is not required to consider a recipient spouse’s earning ability. Consistent with this decision, if a recipient is healthy and able to work full-time, courts generally require a recipient to maximize income. For recipients who have had extended absences from the workforce, a vocational evaluation may be helpful in addressing their reasonable income going forward. 

Where a recipient is re-entering the workforce, courts may award larger amounts of spousal maintenance initially and then “step down” the award at specific dates in the future. This approach is specifically favored in Passolt as a way to “provide employment incentives for a rehabilitating spouse.” Passolt, 804 N.W.2d at 25. Potential or imputed income may also be an issue with the obligor. Earning capacity of an obligor is an appropriate measure of income when income is unjustifiably self-limited. See Warwick v. Warwick, 438 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). Comparing both parties’ incomes to their reasonable needs is necessary to determine both the need for spousal maintenance and the ability to pay. Consideration of the marital standard of living is required but not necessarily determinative of the amount of a spousal maintenance award. See Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631, 642 (Minn. 2009) (holding that a maintenance recipient “can expect a sum that will keep with the circumstances and living standards of the parties at the time of the divorce”); see also Peterka v. Peterka, 675 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). 

If, for example, neither party can afford the marital standard of living, or the marriage is of short duration, the marital standard of living may not be a helpful standard for determining reasonable needs. The court is directed to consider the potential obligee’s estimated net (or after-tax) income if reasonably known and when the net income may be determinative of the spouse’s need for spousal maintenance. See Schmidt v. Schmidt, 964 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. Ct. App. 2021). The Schmidt case also held that in determining the reasonable monthly expenses of a spouse seeking maintenance, a district court must account for regular contributions to a retirement savings account if such contributions were part of the standard of living established during the marriage and must account for the cost of projected health insurance premiums for the spouse seeking maintenance.

What’s the difference between indefinite and transitional spousal maintenance?

Indefinite maintenance continues until you remarry, die, or the court changes it, while transitional maintenance lasts for a specific period. Courts don’t favor one type over the other, and if they’re unsure, they should award indefinite maintenance that can be modified later.

In addition to determining a reasonable amount of spousal maintenance, the court must determine how long the obligation will last. In answering this question, the court must designate an award as either “indefinite” or “transitional.” These are important distinctions. A indefinite award is one that will continue until the parties agree otherwise or a court modifies the amount or duration. The only exception is that unless otherwise agreed upon in the decree, a indefinite award automatically and immediately terminates upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the recipient. See Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 3. The landscape and culture of spousal maintenance is changing nationally and the same is true in Minnesota. There are fewer one-income households today than there were 20 years ago, and with that cultural shift, long-term spousal maintenance awards have become less common. This presents challenges to practitioners because presenting a spousal maintenance case to a judge can be a high-risk proposition. Trials are expensive and when outcomes are unpredictable, this is a risky roll of the dice for the practitioner (who wants a happy client who is willing to pay the bill). 

Similarly, the client cares deeply about their financial future and must carefully weigh the risk versus rewards of litigating spousal maintenance. But in the midst of this cultural shift that may embolden requests for small awards and/or short duration, it is important to note that Minnesota law regarding spousal maintenance duration has not changed. Minnesota Statutes section 518.552, subdivision 3 still provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to favor a transitional award of maintenance over a indefinite award,” and “[w]here there is some uncertainty as to the necessity of a indefinite award, the court shall order a indefinite award leaving its order open for later modification.” 

When might someone get transitional maintenance for education or training?

Transitional maintenance can include time and money for re-education if one spouse gave up their career to support the family. Courts consider whether there’s a specific education plan and whether the paying spouse can afford to support it.

For transitional awards, Minnesota Statutes section 518.552, subdivision 1(b) permits the court to consider time for re-education and “appropriate” employment. In the lean economic times of the great recession, it was less common for recipients to receive significant time for re-education, but that appears to have been based on the parties’ ability to pay for these programs. As the economy recovers, it will likely become more common for recipient spouses to present plans for re-education in transitional spousal maintenance cases. This could mean that there is a transitional award of spousal maintenance that supports the expense of education during a period when there is either no or reduced employment income by the recipient. The statutory premise here is that if one spouse has developed their career while the other spouse stayed home and supported the family, it is reasonable for the recipient spouse to have an opportunity to develop a career instead of simply getting a job, particularly if it makes it more likely that the recipient spouse will be capable of self-support. The consideration in these scenarios will be whether there is a specific and reasonable education plan and whether the obligor has the ability to support the plan. Other key considerations for spousal maintenance duration are the length of the marriage, time away from the workforce, loss of earnings forgone, and the contribution of each party to assets or lack thereof. These are fact specific and potentially complex inquiries. For example, a 10-year marriage where one party stayed home with children is different than a 10-year marriage without children where a spouse did not work in the face of pleas that they find a job. Similarly, there may be a 10-year marriage where both parties have worked throughout and the earning discrepancy has nothing to do with the marriage.

What happens if the court doesn’t award spousal maintenance initially?

If no spousal maintenance is awarded initially, that decision is final and can’t be changed later unless the court specifically reserves the right to decide the issue in the future. Once the appeal period ends, the court loses the power to award maintenance.

If a court declines to award spousal maintenance, that is the final decision and after the appeal period has expired, it cannot be modified. This means that the district court has lost jurisdiction over the issue of spousal maintenance if none was initially awarded. Therefore, a determination of the court or agreement by the parties that neither party will receive spousal maintenance means that neither party can later return to court and seek spousal maintenance. The court has the authority, however, to “reserve jurisdiction of the issue of maintenance for determination at a later date.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.27, subd. 1. This may be appropriate in cases where there is a need for spousal maintenance without a corresponding ability to pay. Reservation of jurisdiction in that scenario gives the potential recipient spouse the ability to seek spousal maintenance when the potential obligor’s circumstances improve. 

Parties may also consider a limited reservation for a specific period of time, after which the court would not have jurisdiction to make a spousal maintenance award. In addition to considering whether a reservation of maintenance is appropriate, the case of Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1989) has been codified and stands for the broad concept that parties can agree to do things in a stipulated judgment and decree that the court would not otherwise have the authority to do. This spawned the term “Karon waiver,” which generally means that the parties have agreed to make the amount and/or duration of spousal maintenance unmodifiable. These waivers may be attractive to both parties, who prefer not to worry about the uncertainty, expense, and risk of post-decree modification litigation. In drafting a Karon waiver, the practitioner should pay special attention to the requirements of McDaniel v. McDaniel, No. A06-2446, 2008 WL 495670 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2008). There, the Minnesota Court of Appeals emphasized the statutory requirement that in a Karon waiver, the court must make specific findings in the judgment and decree. A marital termination agreement or stipulated decree with language that divests the court of jurisdiction over spousal maintenance modification is not sufficient. The decree must include a finding that the waiver is “fair and equitable,” state that there is adequate consideration, describe the consideration, and must indicate that a full and fair disclosure of finances has occurred. See Minn. Stat. § 518.58.