Standing Strong: Howard’s Fight to Honor His Word 

A Narrative Story of Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1989)

Howard F. Karon* sat across from his attorney, reviewing the dissolution papers one final time before signing. After nearly 29 years of marriage to Frima M. Karon*, he knew this moment would change everything. The stipulation they had carefully negotiated in June 1981 represented months of difficult conversations and compromise, but Howard felt confident they had reached a fair agreement that would allow both of them to move forward with certainty.

The terms were clear: Howard would pay Frima $1,200 per month for six years, then $600 per month for four additional years. In exchange, both parties agreed to waive any future claims for spousal maintenance beyond what was specified. Howard understood this meant finality—no going back, no second-guessing, no reopening old wounds. As a successful executive earning $79,337 annually, he could manage these payments while building his own future.

For several years, the arrangement worked exactly as planned. Howard advanced in his career, becoming senior vice president with earnings that grew to $111,440 by 1985 and an estimated $126,000 by 1986. He also participated in a deferred payment plan that would be worth approximately $625,000 by 1995. Meanwhile, Frima received her agreed-upon maintenance payments as scheduled.

Then, in late 1985, everything changed. Despite their clear agreement that neither party could seek additional maintenance, Frima filed a motion asking the court to increase her monthly payments to $3,500 and make them permanent. Howard felt a mix of disbelief and frustration. They had both signed this agreement with full knowledge of its terms, both represented by attorneys, and the court had approved it. How could she now ask to change the rules?

The trial court’s decision to allow modification felt like a betrayal of the entire legal process. Howard had honored every aspect of their agreement, making payments faithfully even as his own financial obligations grew. The court’s ruling that it could ignore their explicit waiver of future maintenance claims undermined the very foundation of negotiated settlements.

Howard’s determination to fight this decision wasn’t about the money, but it was about the principle that agreements should mean something. When people negotiate in good faith, make compromises, and commit to terms, those commitments should be honored. The uncertainty of allowing parties to revisit settled agreements would make it impossible for anyone to plan their financial future after divorce.

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision brought Howard the validation he had been seeking. The court recognized that intelligent adults, especially when represented by counsel, must be expected to honor their contracts. The justices understood that setting aside portions of carefully negotiated stipulations would create chaos in family law and undermine respect for binding agreements.

Howard’s perseverance protected not just his own interests, but the integrity of the entire dissolution process for future parties who deserve the security of knowing their agreements will be honored.

*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: What is a Karon waiver, and should I consider one?

Answer: Let’s set context to understand the Karon case. See the answers below

Question: What happens if a court does not award spousal support?

Answer: If a court decides not to award spousal support, that decision is final and cannot be changed later. This means neither spouse can come back to court asking for spousal support after the case is over.

If a court declines to award spousal maintenance, that is the final decision and after the appeal period has expired, it cannot be modified. This means that the district court has lost jurisdiction over the issue of spousal maintenance if none was initially awarded. Therefore, a determination of the court or agreement by the parties that neither party will receive spousal maintenance means that neither party can later return to court and seek spousal maintenance.

Question: Can a court keep the option open to award spousal support later?

Answer: Yes, a court can choose to “reserve jurisdiction” which means they can decide on spousal support at a later time. This might happen when someone needs support but their spouse can’t afford to pay it right now, so the court waits until the paying spouse’s financial situation improves.

The court has the authority, however, to “reserve jurisdiction of the issue of maintenance for determination at a later date.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.27, subd. 1. This may be appropriate in cases where there is a need for spousal maintenance without a corresponding ability to pay. Reservation of jurisdiction in that scenario gives the potential recipient spouse the ability to seek spousal maintenance when the potential obligor’s circumstances improve. Parties may also consider a limited reservation for a specific period of time, after which the court would not have jurisdiction to make a spousal maintenance award.

Question: What is a Karon waiver and how does it work?

Answer: A Karon waiver is an agreement between divorcing spouses that makes spousal support payments unchangeable in the future. Both parties agree they can’t go back to court later to ask for more or less money, which gives them certainty and avoids future legal battles.

In addition to considering whether a reservation of maintenance is appropriate, the case of Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1989) has been codified and stands for the broad concept that parties can agree to do things in a stipulated judgment and decree that the court would not otherwise have the authority to do. This spawned the term “Karon waiver,” which generally means that the parties have agreed to make the amount and/or duration of spousal maintenance unmodifiable. These waivers may be attractive to both parties, who prefer not to worry about the uncertainty, expense, and risk of post-decree modification litigation.

Question: What are the legal requirements for a valid Karon waiver?

Answer: For a Karon waiver to be valid, the court must make specific findings and include them in the divorce decree. The court must find that the waiver is fair and equitable, that both parties received adequate consideration, and that both parties fully disclosed their financial information.

In drafting a Karon waiver, the practitioner should pay special attention to the requirements of McDaniel v. McDaniel, No. A06-2446, 2008 WL 495670 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2008). There, the Minnesota Court of Appeals emphasized the statutory requirement that in a Karon waiver, the court must make specific findings in the judgment and decree. A marital termination agreement or stipulated decree with language that divests the court of jurisdiction over spousal maintenance modification is not sufficient. The decree must include a finding that the waiver is “fair and equitable,” state that there is adequate consideration, describe the consideration, and must indicate that a full and fair disclosure of finances has occurred. See Minn. Stat. § 518.58.