Standing Strong: Bernice’s Fight for What She Earned

A Narrative Story of Stassen v. Stassen, 351 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)

Bernice Stassen* felt her stomach tighten as she sat across from her husband Richard in the lawyer’s office. After fifty years of marriage, their relationship had finally reached its breaking point. At 71, she faced the daunting prospect of starting over, but what worried her most was whether the court would recognize all the sacrifices she had made throughout their marriage.

For the past 26 years, Bernice had been the primary breadwinner while Richard struggled with alcohol. She worked tirelessly to support their household, managed their rental properties, and even cared for Richard’s aging father during his final years. When Richard’s father passed away in 1958, he left the family property at 774 Winslow to Richard alone. But Bernice remembered the conversations clearly—Richard’s father had promised that the property would belong to both of them in exchange for their commitment to care for him.

The anxiety deepened when Richard claimed the valuable property was his alone, despite everything she had contributed. He argued that since the deed was in his name, she had no right to it. Bernice felt a familiar frustration. After decades of holding their family together financially and emotionally, would her contributions be overlooked simply because her name wasn’t on a piece of paper?

As the case progressed, Bernice found strength in telling her story. She explained how she had not only supported the family financially but had also performed all the homemaking duties, managed their rental units, and even did half the physical remodeling work on their properties. When Richard had temporarily transferred both properties to her name in 1970 to protect them from his legal troubles, he had acknowledged her hard work, telling her she had “earned it.”

When the Court of Appeals issued its decision, Bernice felt a profound sense of validation. The court recognized that the property at 774 Winslow was marital property, despite being titled in Richard’s name alone. The judges understood that her agreement with Richard’s father to provide care created a joint interest in the property. More importantly, they acknowledged her decades of contributions to acquiring, preserving, and maintaining their assets.

The court’s property division reflected the reality of their marriage. Bernice received recognition for being the family’s financial backbone and primary caretaker. She felt empowered knowing that the legal system had seen past the technicalities of property titles to recognize the true partnership she had provided throughout their long marriage.

*This story is based on the true facts of the appellate court’s decision, but the personal experiences and emotions described are a fictional representation to bring the case to life.

Question: Is property always divided 50/50 in a divorce?

Answer: Courts must divide marital property fairly and equally, considering many different factors about each spouse’s situation. The law says courts should look at things like how long the marriage lasted, each person’s age and health, and what each spouse contributed to the marriage.

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 518.58, subdivision 1, the court must make a just or fair and equitable division of the marital property of the parties without regard to marital misconduct.

The district court must consider “all relevant factors” when making a division of the parties’ marital property. Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. In addition, the district court must consider the following statutory factors: (1) the length of the parties’ marriage; (2) whether the parties have been married previously; (3) the age of the parties; (4) the health of the parties; (5) each party’s skills and ability to become employed; (6) each party’s estate and income; and (7) each party’s ability to acquire additional assets in the future. Id. Further, the district court is required to consider each party’s contribution to the marital estate. Specifically, the court must consider “the contribution of each [party] in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation in the amount or value of the marital property, as well as the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker.” Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. Notably, the district court may properly consider a spousal maintenance award in dividing marital property. Ruzic v. Ruzic, 281 N.W.2d 502, 505 (Minn. 1979). “The court may also award to either spouse the household goods and furniture of the parties, whether or not acquired during the marriage.” Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1.

Question: Is property split 50/50 in long marriages versus short marriages?

Answer: In most long-term marriages, property is usually split equally between both spouses. However, in short marriages, the split might be unequal to make things fair based on what each person brought into or contributed to the marriage.

Upon the dissolution of a long-term marriage, in most cases, an equal division of marital property is appropriate. See Kaste v. Kaste, 399 N.W.2d 128, 130 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987); Miller v. Miller, 352 N.W.2d 738, 742 (Minn. 1984). By contrast, a short-term marriage may require an unequal division of property in order to make the overall property division equitable. McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 429 N.W.2d 689, 694–95 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). In dividing property after a short-term marriage, the most important factor for the court to consider is each party’s contribution to the acquisition of the marital estate. For example, in McKee-Johnson, the parties were married for seven years, had one child together, established careers prior to the marriage, and acquired property totaling over $500,000 during the marriage. The district court awarded the husband 60 percent of the marital estate, recognizing the role that his “expertise” played “in increasing the parties’ wealth.” Id. at 695. In other cases involving short-term marriages, courts have restored the parties to “their relative financial positions” as they existed at the time of their marriage. Kendall v. Kendall, 181 N.W.2d 894, 896 (Minn. 1970); see also Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 231 N.W.2d 71, 74–75 (Minn. 1975). Instead of looking at what the parties contributed to the marital estate, the court focuses on what the parties brought into the marriage.

In McKee-Johnson, the wife took a leave from her employment for 18 months to care for the parties’ son. If the wife had remained a stay-at-home parent, the resulting property division may have been different. See Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1 (requiring the court to consider a spouse’s contribution as a “homemaker”).

Question: Does property have to be divided exactly equally to be fair?

Answer: No, property doesn’t have to be split exactly 50/50 to be considered fair. Courts have wide discretion to decide what’s fair based on each couple’s specific situation, and unequal splits are sometimes necessary to achieve true fairness.

Minnesota law requires the court to make a “just and equitable” division of marital property. Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. “District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property, and appellate courts will not alter a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.” Sirek v. Sirek, 693 N.W.2d 896, 898 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). An equitable division of marital property does not require that it be “mathematically equal.” Nazar v. Nazar, 505 N.W.2d 628, 635 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993); see also Stassen v. Stassen, 351 N.W.2d 20, 24 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984); Crosby v. Crosby, 587 N.W.2d 292, 297 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 1999) (“An equitable division of marital property is not necessarily an equal division.”); Johns v. Johns, 354 N.W.2d 564, 566 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). In fact, the district court may determine that an unequal division of property is required to make the overall property division fair and equitable. Unequal property divisions affirmed: In theory, district courts are not restrained by a bright-line rule when making an unequal or disproportionate property award. That being said, the Minnesota Court of Appeals appears more willing to hold that an unequal property division is within a district court’s discretion if the inequity is not greater than a 66/33 split. See McCormick v. McCormick, No. A07-1638, 2008 WL 4470819, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2008) (affirming a 58/42 property division); Kramer v. Kramer, 372 N.W.2d 364, 367 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 11, 1985) (affirming a 60/40 property division); Olness v. Olness, 364 N.W.2d 912, 914 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (affirming a 63/37 division). Unequal property divisions reversed: See Nemmers v. Nemmers, 409 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (reversing a 63/37 division); Ziemer v. Ziemer, 401 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 1987) (reversing a 75/25 division); Jungbauer v. Jungbauer, 391 N.W.2d 56 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (reversing a 70/30 division); Gummow v. Gummow, 356 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (reversing an 80/20 division of real property and a 100/0 split of a pension plan); Oberle v. Oberle, 355 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (reversing a 62/38 division). For a recent unpublished decision, see Appana v. Konkimalla, No. A23-0111, 2023 Minn. App. LEXIS 259 (Minn. Ct. App. July 25, 2023) (remanding a 71/29 division).

Question: What factors determine how property gets divided?

Answer: Courts look at the specific facts of each case and what each spouse contributed to acquiring and maintaining the property. While both spouses are assumed to have contributed substantially, other factors may still justify an unequal division.

The district court’s division of property must ultimately be based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the contribution of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation, or appreciation in the amount of value of the property. See Lenzmeier, 231 N.W.2d at 74; Sirek, 693 N.W.2d at 898. It is conclusively presumed that each spouse substantially contributed to the acquisition of income and property while living together as spouses. Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. However, the district court must still consider the other statutory factors, and those factors may support an unequal property division. In other words, an equal division of marital property does not necessarily follow from the presumption that both parties made a substantial contribution to the marital estate. See Kowalzek v. Kowalzek, 360 N.W.2d 423, 427 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (“Once this conclusive presumption is applied, the statute still gives the trial court discretion to determine what is a fair division, which is not mandated in all cases to be exactly one-half.”).

Question: When might someone get more than half the property in a divorce?

Answer: Courts have awarded unequal property divisions based on various circumstances, such as when one spouse was the main income earner, took care of family members, had health problems, or when one spouse’s awarded property carried more risk or debt.

Minnesota courts have determined that an unequal division of marital assets may be appropriate based on various circumstances and factors. For example, in Olness v. Olness, 364 N.W.2d 912, 914 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985), the district court divided the marital estate unequally when it awarded the wife 36.7 percent of the estate. The district court made findings to support this unequal division, citing that the assets awarded to the husband were more vulnerable to a future decrease in value, recognizing the husband’s personal efforts to preserve the debt-encumbered property he was awarded, and noting that the husband’s risk in taking a larger percentage of the total debt eroded the value of his award. Olness, 364 N.W.2d at 914. Similarly, in Stassen v. Stassen, 351 N.W.2d 20, 23 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), the district court determined that a greater award of marital assets to the wife was equitable even after a long-term marriage (nearly 50 years). The district court found that the wife was continuously employed during the marriage, was the principal provider of income for the family, was the sole homemaker, and cared for the husband’s father, which justified a larger property award. Stassen, 351 N.W.2d at 23. Awarding the wife 60 percent of the marital estate was found to be fair and equitable in In re the Marriage of Kreuziger, Nos. A06-910, A06-1142, 2007 WL 2245469, at *6 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2007). The district court awarded the wife a disproportionate share of the marital estate based on several factors, including: (1) the length of the parties’ marriage; (2) the fact that both parties were beyond normal retirement age; (3) the wife’s health problems; (4) the fact that the wife should be permitted to retire from her employment just as the husband had done; and (5) the fact that the husband had substantial nonmarital assets. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s award. See also Kaste v. Kaste, 399 N.W.2d 128, 130 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (upholding district court’s decision to award wife 57 percent of the marital estate after considering her health, employability, and financial difficulties). Toso v. Toso, No. A12-1033, 2013 WL 2923639, at *7 (Minn. Ct. App. June 17, 2013) addressed how the allocation of debts may affect the overall property division. The husband argued that the division of marital property was not equitable because the district court ordered him to assume all of the marital debt and pay the wife an equalizer payment over time. The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the husband’s argument, stating that the district court’s decision to order the husband to assume all of the marital debt did not necessarily make the division of property unjust and inequitable. The court of appeals also noted that, while the husband may have been ordered to pay all of the marital debts, he was also being awarded his business as his nonmarital property, providing him with a substantial nonmarital asset. In Knight v. Knight, No. A14-0486, 2015 WL 2341103, at *8 (Minn. Ct. App. May 18, 2015), the husband argued that the district court erred by awarding the wife a disproportionate share of the marital estate. The wife was awarded approximately $60,000 more in assets than the husband. The district court’s decision was based, in part, on the fact that the husband spent more than twice as much as the wife in attorneys’ fees and used the parties’ marital funds to pay his fees. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, citing its broad discretion regarding the division of property. In LaTour v. LaTour, No. A16-1476, 2017 WL 3974397, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2017), the district court awarded the wife $25,733.25 in retirement assets. The district court awarded the husband his IRA with a value of $11,488.72 and a pension, the value of which was unknown. The husband argued that the district court erred by awarding the wife “more than double” the value of the retirement assets that were awarded to him. LaTour, 2017 WL 3974397, at *3. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, stating that “property division need not be equal to be equitable.” Id. at *4.