What are other important factors in determining Minnesota spousal maintenance duration?

When couples end their relationships, the legal system faces the complex task of determining how long one person should support another after their formal marriage ends. While Minnesota Statutes § 518.552 provides a framework for these decisions, real life often presents situations that don’t fit neatly into statutory categories. The interplay between legal marriage, emotional commitment, and financial interdependence creates challenging questions about what relationships truly “count” for maintenance purposes.

When Love Doesn’t Equal Legal Recognition: The Dobrin Reality

In 1997, the Minnesota Supreme Court encountered a case that would crystallize one of maintenance law’s most counterintuitive principles. Ruth and Harvey Dobrin* had shared what most people would consider a lifetime together—twenty years of unmarried partnership followed by a relatively brief legal marriage. When their relationship finally ended, Ruth naturally argued that the court should consider their entire relationship, not just the period when they held a marriage certificate.

Ruth’s argument seemed compelling from a human perspective. She had devoted decades to supporting Harvey’s career and building their shared life together. The absence of a marriage certificate during those early years reflected legal formalities, not the reality of their emotional and financial partnership. If the purpose of maintenance is to address the economic consequences of a relationship where one person has sacrificed career opportunities to support the family unit, shouldn’t twenty years of partnership matter regardless of when they formalized it legally?

The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected this reasoning definitively. In Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1997), the Court held that even a 20-year premarital relationship was given no consideration in determining maintenance duration. The Court focused exclusively on the legal marriage, treating the decades of prior partnership as legally irrelevant to maintenance calculations.

This decision reflected a bright-line rule that prioritizes legal certainty over individual equity. Ruth and Harvey had chosen to live together without marriage for twenty years—a decision that carried legal consequences, including the inability to claim spousal maintenance for that period. The Court reasoned that allowing premarital relationships to extend maintenance duration would create impossible evidentiary problems. How would courts determine when such relationships truly began? What level of commitment or financial interdependence would be required? How would they distinguish between casual dating and marriage-like partnerships?

From Ruth’s perspective, the Dobrin decision likely felt harsh and unfair. She had sacrificed career opportunities and devoted decades to supporting their partnership, only to discover that the law viewed most of her contributions as irrelevant. But from Harvey’s perspective, the decision provided important protection—he had deliberately chosen not to marry for twenty years, perhaps specifically to avoid the legal obligations that marriage entails.

The Separation Paradox: When Marriage Continues But Partnership Ends

While the Dobrin decision established that premarital relationships don’t extend maintenance duration, Minnesota courts face the reverse situation with lengthy separations prior to divorce. These cases present a different challenge: when spouses have been legally married for years but living separately, should the entire marriage count toward maintenance duration, or should courts focus on the period when the couple actually functioned as a marital unit?

Consider Michael and Janet*, who married young and lived together happily for eight years before growing apart. Rather than divorcing immediately, they separated and lived independently for another twelve years before finally formalizing their divorce. During the separation, Michael might have paid informal support to Janet, or she might have supported herself entirely. When they finally divorce after twenty years of legal marriage, should Janet be eligible for long-term maintenance based on a twenty-year marriage, or should the court focus on the eight years when they actually lived as husband and wife?

The paying spouse may believe that they have already paid sufficient support during the lengthy separation, viewing the formal divorce as merely a legal formality that shouldn’t trigger additional maintenance obligations. From Michael’s perspective, he has been supporting two households for twelve years and may have already helped Janet achieve financial independence during their separation.

But the court’s inquiry may be just beginning when the formal divorce proceedings start. Courts must apply Minnesota Statutes § 518.552 based on the legal marriage duration, regardless of how long the spouses lived separately. The statute requires consideration of the length of the marriage as one factor in determining maintenance, and legal separation doesn’t end the marriage for these purposes.

This creates a paradox where legal formalities can disconnect from practical realities. Janet might argue that she deserves maintenance based on a twenty-year marriage, even though she has been essentially divorced for twelve of those years. Michael might argue that their eight-year functional marriage should determine maintenance duration, especially if he provided support during their separation that helped Janet develop her earning capacity.

Courts must navigate these competing perspectives while applying statutory factors that don’t explicitly address lengthy separations. The result is often litigation that focuses on the quality and duration of the marital relationship rather than just its legal length. Did the spouses maintain any financial interdependence during their separation? Did one spouse continue to sacrifice career opportunities for the other’s benefit? How should informal support during separation affect formal maintenance calculations?

The Same-Sex Marriage Evolution: When Legal History Complicates Current Justice

Perhaps nowhere is the disconnect between legal formalities and relationship realities more apparent than in same-sex marriage cases. This aspect of duration is more nuanced for those couples in same-sex marriages that would have been married but for the prior legal limitations on such marriages. These couples face unique challenges when divorce courts try to determine maintenance duration based solely on legal marriage length.

Consider David and Robert*, who began their relationship in 1995 and lived as a committed couple for eighteen years before they could legally marry in Minnesota in 2013. When their relationship ends in 2024, they will have been legally married for only eleven years, but their actual partnership spans nearly three decades. Unlike the Dobrin situation, where the couple chose not to marry, David and Robert were legally prohibited from marrying for most of their relationship.

This legal history creates profound equity concerns when determining maintenance duration. David might have spent decades supporting Robert’s career, making the same sacrifices that would justify long-term maintenance in a heterosexual marriage of similar duration. But under a strict application of Dobrin principles, courts would consider only their eleven-year legal marriage, potentially denying David maintenance that reflects his actual contributions and sacrifices.

The situation becomes even more complex when considering the various legal recognitions that preceded full marriage equality. Some same-sex couples entered civil unions or domestic partnerships that provided partial legal recognition. Others moved to states that recognized their relationships earlier. Should courts consider these intermediate forms of legal recognition when calculating marriage duration?

Minnesota courts haven’t definitively resolved these questions, but the underlying principle seems clear: when couples were legally prohibited from marrying, the reasons for the Dobrin rule—preventing individuals from avoiding marriage’s legal consequences—don’t apply. David and Robert didn’t choose to avoid marriage; they were prevented from marrying by discriminatory laws.

Some courts in other jurisdictions have recognized this distinction by considering the total relationship duration for same-sex couples who couldn’t legally marry earlier. This approach acknowledges that marriage duration rules should focus on the couple’s actual commitment and interdependence, not their access to legal recognition. But implementing this approach requires courts to make difficult factual determinations about when relationships became marriage-like and whether the couples would have married if legally permitted.

Practical Implications for Modern Divorcing Couples

These duration factors create important strategic considerations for divorcing spouses in Minnesota. For couples with lengthy premarital relationships, the Dobrin decision means that time invested before marriage won’t extend maintenance duration, regardless of the sacrifices made during that period. This reality should influence both prenuptial planning and divorce strategy.

Couples considering marriage after lengthy partnerships should understand that maintenance calculations will begin fresh on their wedding day. Someone who has supported a partner’s career for years before marriage won’t receive maintenance credit for that support. This might influence decisions about when to marry or whether to formalize financial arrangements before marriage.

For couples facing lengthy separations, the disconnect between legal marriage duration and actual partnership duration creates complex strategic decisions. The paying spouse might prefer to finalize divorce quickly to limit maintenance exposure based on legal marriage length. The recipient spouse might prefer to delay divorce to extend the marriage duration for maintenance purposes, but this strategy risks losing credibility if the court focuses on the functional end of the marital relationship.

Same-sex couples face unique challenges that require careful documentation of their relationship history. Courts may be more willing to consider pre-marriage relationship duration when couples were legally prohibited from marrying, but proving this might require extensive evidence about the nature and duration of their partnership. These couples should be prepared to demonstrate not just that they were in a relationship, but that it was marriage-like in its commitment and financial interdependence.

The Broader Question: What Relationships Count?

Behind these specific duration factors lies a broader question about what kinds of relationships deserve legal protection and support. The Dobrin decision reflects a formal approach that prioritizes legal marriage over functional partnership. This approach provides certainty and prevents individuals from claiming the benefits of marriage without accepting its obligations. But it can also produce results that seem inequitable when couples have genuine marriage-like partnerships without legal recognition.

The challenge for Minnesota courts is balancing these competing values while applying statutory factors that don’t explicitly address these situations. Minnesota Statutes § 518.552 requires consideration of marriage length, but it doesn’t specify how to handle lengthy separations or premarital relationships. Courts must develop these principles through case-by-case analysis that can create uncertainty for divorcing couples.

The evolution of same-sex marriage law adds another layer of complexity to these questions. As society’s understanding of marriage and partnership continues to evolve, courts may need to reconsider rigid applications of duration rules that don’t account for couples who were prevented from marrying by discriminatory laws.

Looking Forward: Duration in an Evolving Legal Landscape

Minnesota’s approach to maintenance duration factors reflects broader tensions in family law between formal rules and equitable outcomes. The Dobrin decision provides certainty by establishing clear boundaries around what relationships count for maintenance purposes. But this clarity sometimes comes at the cost of equity for couples whose circumstances don’t fit traditional patterns.

As Minnesota courts continue to address these issues, they must balance several important interests. Recipients need protection from the economic consequences of relationships where they made genuine sacrifices for their partner’s benefit. Payors need protection from maintenance obligations that extend beyond their actual legal commitments. Courts need manageable standards that don’t require extensive litigation about the nature and duration of every relationship.

The key insight from these cases is that maintenance duration involves more than simple arithmetic about marriage length. Courts must consider the quality and nature of the marital relationship, the reasons for any disconnects between legal and functional marriage duration, and the equitable implications of applying formal rules to complex human relationships.

For divorcing couples, understanding these factors can significantly impact both immediate strategy and long-term planning. The interplay between legal marriage duration, actual partnership duration, and statutory maintenance factors creates a complex landscape that requires careful navigation with experienced legal counsel.

The stories of Ruth Dobrin and countless others remind us that love, commitment, and legal recognition don’t always align perfectly. While the law provides frameworks for addressing these disconnects, the human reality of relationships often exceeds what legal categories can capture. Minnesota’s maintenance duration factors reflect ongoing efforts to balance legal certainty with equitable outcomes in an area where both values are essential.

📚 Citations

• Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199 (Minn. 1997) (establishing that premarital relationships, even lengthy ones, are not considered in determining spousal maintenance duration) • Minnesota Statutes § 518.552 (2024) (providing statutory framework for spousal maintenance awards, including consideration of marriage length as a factor in determining duration)

*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.