How much does a Minnesota court weigh a spouse’s potential income when deciding spousal maintenance?

Prior to 2011, courts looked past a spouse’s earning potential if they had been out of the workforce for many years or had lived in a high-income household. But that changed with the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ decision in Passolt, which emphasized the importance of a spouse’s actual ability to earn income—even if that income hadn’t been realized yet. Since then, courts have continued to use a practical, case-by-case approach, balancing age, health, training, and how realistic future employment might be.

Michelle Passolt* had spent most of her adult life raising children and working part-time as a fitness instructor. When her marriage ended after three decades, she was 52 years old and earning only $3,000 per year. Her husband, by contrast, earned more than $500,000 annually. Michelle hoped that her long history as a stay-at-home parent and the family’s high standard of living would justify significant spousal maintenance. But her husband argued she could do more—and the court agreed.

In Passolt v. Passolt, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that “the ability of a spouse seeking maintenance to become self-supporting must be evaluated based on the obligee’s actual earning capacity at the time of divorce, regardless of their employment history during the marriage” (804 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)). The court also clarified that “Carrick and Maurer were meant to apply only to the period between separation and the final decree of divorce.” Thus, while temporary orders might reflect pre-divorce income or circumstances, permanent maintenance awards must rely on the spouse’s realistic current capacity to earn under Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(b). In the years following Passolt, trial courts continued to apply these standards with a practical mindset.

In Powell v. Powell, Grace Powell* had been unemployed for many years due to chronic illness. The court weighed vocational expert testimony and ultimately found that Grace’s potential for full-time employment was too speculative to support a reduction in spousal maintenance. Similarly, in Brooks v. Brooks, Diane Brooks* had limited recent work history and suffered from persistent health conditions. The court again declined to impute income, emphasizing her age and health limitations.

These cases reinforce the discretion Minnesota trial courts retain in evaluating spousal maintenance. The key factor is whether a spouse’s ability to return to work is real or merely hypothetical. When the court finds that a spouse’s return to work is speculative or unrealistic—due to age, health, or significant time away from the workforce—it may decline to assign earning capacity. But when earning capacity is reasonably attainable, it must be considered as a statutory factor in setting maintenance.

Citations:

• Passolt v. Passolt, 804 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011) (“The ability of a spouse seeking maintenance to become self-supporting must be evaluated based on the obligee’s actual earning capacity at the time of divorce, regardless of their employment history during the marriage” and “Carrick and Maurer were meant to apply only to the period between separation and the final decree of divorce.”)
• Powell v. Powell, No. A11-373, 2012 WL 762230 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2012) (Declined to impute income where the spouse’s return to work was speculative due to health and long absence from workforce.)
• Brooks v. Brooks, No. A12-0553, 2013 WL 869670 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2013) (Affirmed decision not to impute income to a spouse with limited work history and health issues.)
• Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(b) (Requires consideration of a spouse’s ability to meet needs through appropriate employment.)
• *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.