Long-Term v. Short Term Marriages

What Matters Most?

Upon the dissolution of a long marriage, in many cases an equal division of marital property is appropriate. The inverse presumption is that a short-term marriage may require an unequal division of property to be equitable.

In a short marriage, the most important factor for the court in equitable distribution is each party’s contribution to the acquisition of marital assets. For example, in the McKee-Johnson case, the parties had been married for seven years, had one child, had established careers prior to the marriage, and had acquired property totaling over $500,000 during the marriage. In that case, the husband was awarded 60 percent of the marital assets because the court recognized his “expertise in increasing the parties’ wealth.” Minnesota courts have also recognized the appropriateness in restoring parties to their separate status before a short marriage.

In such situations, Minnesota courts commonly aim to restore both parties to their financial positions before the marriage, as much as possible. This approach ensures that each individual retains the assets and financial standing they brought into the marriage, particularly when the union has been brief and the contributions to marital wealth have been unequal.

When navigating the complexities of property division in a divorce, especially in cases involving short-term marriages, it’s crucial to have experienced legal guidance. A knowledgeable attorney can help you understand how these principles might apply to your unique circumstances and work to protect your financial interests during the divorce process. Whether you’re facing a contested property division or seeking an amicable resolution, our law firm is here to provide the support and expertise you need to achieve a fair and equitable outcome.