How Does Retirement Affect Existing Spousal Maintenance Obligations in Minnesota?

Retirement is a major life transition—but for divorced spouses, it’s also a legal and financial crossroads. If you’ve been paying or receiving spousal maintenance in Minnesota, the question of how retirement changes those obligations isn’t always straightforward. While the end of a working career often means reduced income, that doesn’t automatically mean the end—or reduction—of spousal maintenance. The legal question becomes: Is the change in income significant enough to modify the original award, and how should retirement assets factor in?

Minnesota courts have struggled with these questions. The law continues to evolve—and the stories of people like Tom* and Deirdre* Lee, and others, show how the outcome depends heavily on how property was divided, what the maintenance terms were, and whether retirement is taken in good faith.

A New Chapter—But Not a Clean Slate

Tom* Lee had built a solid career in law enforcement. When he and Deirdre* divorced, the court awarded spousal maintenance to Deirdre, and the couple’s pension was divided. Years later, when Tom retired, he hoped this would mean the end of his maintenance obligation. His pension—part marital, part nonmarital—was now his primary income.

But Deirdre still relied on monthly support. She hadn’t remarried, and although she’d also received a share of the marital pension, it wasn’t enough to cover her living expenses.

Tom argued that his post-divorce pension income, particularly the nonmarital portion, shouldn’t be considered when deciding whether he could still pay. The trial court disagreed.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ultimately clarified the issue in Lee v. Lee, holding: “Pension benefits not awarded as property are income when received and can be considered for payment of spousal maintenance.” 775 N.W.2d 631, 635 (Minn. 2009).

This meant that Tom’s nonmarital pension income—though not part of Deirdre’s property award—could still be used to support her. The Court emphasized that the marital portion of the pension was already divided and could not be “reused” for maintenance. But the rest? It was income, plain and simple.

For divorcing couples, this ruling had major implications: even pension income that wasn’t marital property can count when determining someone’s ability to pay spousal maintenance after retirement.

What About the Receiving Spouse’s Assets?

In Winer v. Winer, another question emerged: Should a spouse who receives maintenance be required to dip into their own retirement assets once they hit retirement age?

Ellen* Winer, the obligee, was approaching retirement. She had received a portion of the marital retirement assets in the divorce, but not enough to support herself indefinitely. Her ex-husband argued that now that she was retired, she should draw down her own assets before asking for continued maintenance.

But the court disagreed, explaining that if Ellen used up her principal and outlived her savings, she could be left with nothing but Social Security. The Court of Appeals concluded that obligees should not be required to deplete marital retirement assets to meet their needs, at least not automatically. See Winer v. Winer, No. A15-0339, 2016 WL 456818 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2016).

Early Retirement: Strategic or Sincere?

Retirement isn’t always a clean break, especially when it’s taken early. In Richards v. Richards, 472 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991), the court considered whether the paying spouse had retired in “good faith.”

Craig* Richards had taken early retirement, but his ex-wife argued that he did so just to avoid paying maintenance. Courts do not assume all retirements are genuine. Instead, they look at multiple factors: Was there a company-wide retirement policy? What were the spouse’s health and financial circumstances? Was this the expected retirement timeline?

In Richards, the court emphasized that there is no presumptive age of retirement, and modification depends on the totality of the circumstances. If retirement is not done in good faith—or seems like a tactic to evade financial responsibility—modification may be denied.

Property Division and Pensions: A Tangle of Interests

Earlier in Minnesota law, a case called Kruschel v. Kruschel, 419 N.W.2d 119 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988), had created confusion. It suggested that pension benefits couldn’t be considered for maintenance until the entire marital property award was “used up.” This rule made it hard to consider pension income when modifying support after retirement.

But Lee explicitly overturned Kruschel, stating that maintenance analysis doesn’t have to wait until all property is exhausted. Instead, each pension payment must be apportioned between marital and nonmarital portions, and the nonmarital income may be considered for maintenance.

That clarity helps—but it also requires careful documentation of how pensions were earned, divided, and labeled in the divorce decree. Later cases like Honke v. Honke, 960 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 2021), show that the court is still grappling with how to treat retirement assets that grow or change after the divorce.

What This Means for You

If you’re approaching retirement—or your ex-spouse is—it’s essential to plan ahead:

• Retirement may constitute a “change in circumstances” under Minn. Stat. § 518A.39 (2024), but that alone doesn’t guarantee modification.
• Courts will still ask whether maintenance remains unreasonable and unfair in light of the new income situation.
• Retirement assets divided during the divorce are generally off-limits for further use—but income from non-divided assets can be considered.
• Early retirement may not justify a change unless it’s proven to be reasonable and in good faith.

📚 Citations

• Minn. Stat. § 518A.39 (2024) – (Sets the legal standard for modifying spousal maintenance, requiring a substantial change in circumstances that makes the current award unreasonable and unfair.)
• Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. 2009) – (“Pension benefits not awarded as property are income when received and can be considered for payment of spousal maintenance.”)
• Kruschel v. Kruschel, 419 N.W.2d 119 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) – (Earlier rule requiring obligor to receive entire marital award before pension could be used for maintenance; overruled by Lee.)
• Winer v. Winer, No. A15-0339, 2016 WL 456818 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2016) – (Held that obligee cannot be required to deplete marital retirement principal to meet support needs.)
• Richards v. Richards, 472 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) – (Court examines good faith of early retirement in determining if modification is justified.)
• Honke v. Honke, 960 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 2021) – (Addresses, but does not resolve, treatment of post-divorce retirement asset growth.)

*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.