How do courts assess the financial resources of a spouse seeking maintenance in Minnesota?

When a Minnesota court considers whether to award spousal maintenance (and how much) it begins by asking a practical question: What financial resources does the spouse already have? An examination of these four cases from 1986-2021 are illustrative to the question of how courts assess the financial resources of a spouse seeking maintenance.

Under Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(a), that means looking at income from marital property, potential trust distributions, gifts, inheritances, and any child support designated for the custodial parent. But not all assets count the same. Courts distinguish between what’s available and reliable versus what’s merely possible or speculative, and the difference can determine whether maintenance is granted—or denied.

When Linda Weikle* and her husband James Weikle divorced, Linda’s life was full of unknowns. She had modest personal savings and a limited income, but James claimed she had a safety net: her share in her late father’s trust. To him, that trust meant Linda didn’t need spousal maintenance. But Linda knew better. The trust was legally out of reach—she had no right to withdraw anything and hadn’t received a cent.

In Weikle v. Weikle, the Minnesota Court of Appeals clarified this exact issue, holding that “only those financial resources that are presently available to the spouse should be considered” when deciding on maintenance. The court rejected James’s argument and found in Linda’s favor. Just because a spouse may be entitled to something in the future doesn’t mean it counts today. The law requires a focus on what is real and accessible—not hypothetical.

A similar battle played out in Ziemer v. Ziemer, where Sharon Ziemer* asked for maintenance following her divorce from Thomas Ziemer. Thomas pointed to Sharon’s interest in a family trust and claimed she could live comfortably off of it. Sharon explained that distributions from the trust weren’t guaranteed, and she had no control over whether the trustee would send more money. The court agreed with her, emphasizing that “income from assets is the primary consideration”, but that income must be reasonably assured. Since the trust’s future payments were uncertain, they couldn’t be used to deny her needed support.

But what happens when those payments are happening—at least sometimes?

Mary Honke* faced this dilemma. After her divorce from Daniel Honke, she began receiving significant post-divorce payments from a family trust. Daniel returned to court to reduce his spousal maintenance obligation, arguing Mary was now financially secure. Mary countered that the trust distributions were inconsistent and could stop at any time.

In Honke v. Honke, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that “postdivorce gifts, inheritances, and other payments, including the principal and income of a trust, may be considered” when deciding whether a spouse still needs maintenance. The Court didn’t lay out exact rules for how to weigh these sources, but it opened the door to considering them—as long as there’s credible evidence that they are reliable and not merely speculative. In other words, it’s not just about whether payments exist, but whether they will likely continue.

The Court of Appeals expanded on this principle in Feierabend v. Feierabend. Karen Feierabend* was receiving irregular financial help from family members and had access to some investments, but her ex-husband argued this support meant she no longer needed maintenance. The court disagreed. It explained that speculative or inconsistent support does not necessarily disqualify a spouse from receiving maintenance, especially when there’s no legal guarantee the funds will keep coming. In maintenance cases, the court needs proof, not wishful thinking.

These cases share a core lesson: In Minnesota, courts assess a spouse’s financial resources by focusing on what is currently accessible and likely to continue—not what may exist in theory or hope. Trust income can count if it’s dependable. Gifts may matter if they’re ongoing and predictable. But future inheritances, discretionary trust payments, or irregular support will carry little weight if they can’t be verified or counted on. Judges are tasked with making real-world decisions based on real-world evidence, and spouses seeking (or contesting) maintenance should be prepared to prove what’s dependable and what’s not.

Citations:

• Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(a) (Court must consider “the financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to the party, and the party’s ability to meet needs independently…”)
• Weikle v. Weikle, 403 N.W.2d 682, 687 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (“Only those financial resources that are presently available to the spouse should be considered” when evaluating need for maintenance.)
• Ziemer v. Ziemer, 386 N.W.2d 348, 352 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (“Income from assets is the primary consideration,” but future or uncertain income from trusts is not automatically counted.)
• Honke v. Honke, 960 N.W.2d 261, 270–71 (Minn. 2021) (“Postdivorce gifts, inheritances, and other payments, including the principal and income of a trust, may be considered,” though the Court provides no fixed rule for weighing them.)
• Feierabend v. Feierabend & St. Louis Cty., No. A20-1440, 2021 WL 5767852 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2021) (Speculative or inconsistent support does not necessarily preclude a maintenance award.)
• *The identities of these parties and facts of their matter were publicly published and thus not confidential. While the case holding and statutory references are accurate, creative liberty has been imposed for the emotional portrayal of the parties.