How Much Spousal Maintenance Can Be Awarded in a Minnesota Divorce?

Spousal maintenance in Minnesota is not determined by a formula or a presumption of equal income. Instead, it is based on a wide-ranging evaluation of each party’s financial circumstances, needs, and the impact of the marriage. Courts apply eight statutory factors under Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2, but they may also consider “all relevant factors.” The result is a nuanced, case-by-case determination that balances fairness, practicality, and dignity for both parties.

Elaine Lyon* walked into her divorce knowing her financial picture looked nothing like her husband Douglas Lyon’s. She had spent most of their marriage focused on raising their children and supporting Douglas’s career, which flourished over the years. Now, with the marriage ending, Elaine hoped for maintenance that could bring her life closer to what they had built together. Douglas, on the other hand, argued that while she deserved support, she shouldn’t receive so much that their incomes were nearly equal.

The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed. In Lyon v. Lyon, the Court held that “Minnesota law does not contemplate an equal income-sharing approach to spousal maintenance.” It clarified that spousal maintenance should not be used to make both spouses financially identical, but to meet the reasonable needs of the spouse who cannot provide for themselves—especially if that inability is a result of the marriage itself. The ruling also acknowledged that in some cases, when both parties must reduce their standard of living, a “share the pain” approach may be fair. Still, the Court reaffirmed that spousal maintenance remains rooted in need and ability to pay—not equalizing incomes.

For Judith Burt*, the need was not only financial but physical. Her husband Donald Burt had subjected her to years of domestic violence, and by the time their marriage ended, she bore lasting physical injuries. These injuries limited her ability to work full-time or compete in the job market. When she requested spousal maintenance, Donald’s attorney argued that misconduct—however regrettable—shouldn’t affect maintenance awards.

But in Burt v. Burt, the Court of Appeals made an important distinction. While “the court cannot consider marital misconduct” in determining maintenance generally, it held that “where one spouse’s conduct causes a particular need, that conduct may be considered.” Judith’s diminished earning capacity was not about punishing Donald for his abuse—it was about recognizing that the abuse had directly affected her financial reality. The Court allowed the maintenance award to reflect her needs, even though those needs had been caused by the very person she was divorcing.

These cases demonstrate that Minnesota courts use a fact-driven, individualized approach when awarding spousal maintenance. The law permits broad discretion, guiding judges to consider everything from one spouse’s caregiving history to the long-term consequences of abuse. The goal is not to equalize wealth, but to ensure that each person can move forward with fairness and stability. And while misconduct is not a factor on its own, if a spouse’s actions create lasting financial hardship, that impact may appropriately influence the outcome.

Citations:

• Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2 (Spousal maintenance must be determined in light of “all relevant factors,” including but not limited to eight statutory factors like standard of living during the marriage, duration of the marriage, age, and the ability to become self-supporting.)
• Lyon v. Lyon, 439 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. 1989) (“Minnesota law does not contemplate an equal income-sharing approach to spousal maintenance,” but a “share the pain” theory may apply in some circumstances.)
• Burt v. Burt, 386 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (“Where one spouse’s conduct causes a particular need, that conduct may be considered” in evaluating maintenance.)
• *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.