Finding Her Voice: Lorene’s Journey to Financial Security

A Narrative Story of Schroeder v. Schroeder, 405 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)

Lorene Schroeder* sat quietly in the courtroom, her hands folded tightly in her lap as she listened to her ex-husband’s attorney argue why her modest $200 monthly maintenance should be eliminated. At 55, after dedicating 26 years to her marriage and raising four children, she felt a familiar knot of anxiety in her stomach. Would the court understand that her part-time job earning just $206 a month wasn’t enough to survive on?

When Henry had left their marriage in 1980, Lorene found herself facing an uncertain future. Without a high school diploma and having spent decades as a full-time homemaker, the job market felt overwhelming. She had managed to find part-time work, but even with Henry’s maintenance payments and her small income, her monthly budget of $444 barely covered basic necessities. She had no health insurance, no dental coverage, and lived paycheck to paycheck.

Henry’s argument centered on his new marriage and increased expenses. He claimed that since their youngest child had turned 18, Lorene should be working full-time and supporting herself completely. His attorney painted a picture of a woman who simply chose not to work harder, ignoring the reality of her limited education and age in a competitive job market.

As Lorene listened to the proceedings, she felt a wave of validation when the court recognized the distinction between different types of maintenance. The judge acknowledged that her permanent maintenance award wasn’t designed to push her toward complete self-sufficiency like rehabilitative maintenance would be. Instead, it recognized that after a 26-year traditional marriage, she was unlikely to achieve full financial independence through vocational rehabilitation.

When the court denied Henry’s motion, Lorene felt a profound sense of relief wash over her. The judge understood that Henry’s decision to remarry came with the knowledge that his first obligation remained to his former wife. More importantly, the court recognized that permanent maintenance recipients aren’t required to achieve full self-support—a principle that would prove enduring even as Minnesota’s spousal maintenance laws evolved decades later.

Walking out of the courthouse that day, Lorene felt empowered knowing the legal system had protected her right to financial stability after sacrificing her career for her family’s well-being.

Note on 2024 Changes: Under Minnesota’s updated spousal maintenance statutes effective August 2024, Lorene’s situation would now be classified as “indefinite maintenance” rather than “permanent maintenance.” However, the core principle from Schroeder—that indefinite maintenance recipients are not required to achieve full self-sufficiency—remains intact and continues to guide courts in distinguishing between transitional maintenance (which expects eventual self-sufficiency) and indefinite maintenance (which does not).

*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: Is the recipient of spousal maintenance expected to try to earn more money?

Answer: Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(b) requires the court to consider “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.”

Question: How important is finding appropriate employment in spousal maintenance cases?

Answer: Finding appropriate employment is one of the most important factors courts consider when deciding if someone should get spousal maintenance and how much they should receive.

Following Passolt v. Passolt, 804 N.W.2d 18 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 2011), the “appropriate employment” factor is central both to whether maintenance is warranted and to the amount and duration.

Question: What happens if someone had a high-paying job but changed careers before divorce?

Answer: Courts will look at whether someone should go back to their old high-paying job or continue with their new lower-paying career, considering factors like job availability and reasons for the change.

A recurring issue arises when, during the marriage, a spouse held a lucrative position but left it pre-divorce to pursue a less remunerative career. When the divorce begins, key questions include whether there is an obligation to return to the prior job and how to evaluate earning capacity. The court has broad discretion and will weigh, among other things:

• the market for resuming the former job or a comparable position;
• the reasons for the change (e.g., burnout, depression); and
• the time and cost to reenter the former field versus continuing the new path.

While a court cannot force a spouse to take a particular job, it may impute income based on proven ability to earn at prior levels. See Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst, 724 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).

Question: Does getting job training or finding work automatically end spousal maintenance?

Answer: Getting training or a job doesn’t automatically stop spousal maintenance because many people can only partially support themselves even after getting education and employment.

Retraining and reentry into the workforce do not automatically terminate maintenance. In many cases the spouse becomes only partially self-supporting even with full education and employment. See Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 615 N.W.2d 405 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000); Passolt, 804 N.W.2d at 18. Accordingly, a detailed budget at the marital standard of living is critical to demonstrate ongoing need. The ultimate question is whether the spouse is fully or only partially self-supporting, measured against demonstrated needs rather than the mere fact of employment.