What does it mean to reserve spousal maintenance in Minnesota?

Sometimes the most important decision a court makes about spousal maintenance is not what to award today, but what doors to keep open for tomorrow. In Minnesota, courts can “reserve” spousal maintenance—essentially keeping the question alive for future consideration even when no current award is made. This legal tool recognizes that life after divorce rarely unfolds according to courtroom predictions.

The Power of the Pause: Understanding Reservations

A reservation of spousal maintenance creates a unique legal status: the court terminates any current maintenance obligation but explicitly preserves the recipient’s right to seek support in the future without having to prove that circumstances have changed since the divorce. It’s like hitting the pause button rather than the stop button on maintenance discussions.

This distinction matters enormously because Minnesota law typically requires someone seeking to modify maintenance to prove that circumstances have substantially changed since the original order. But when a court reserves maintenance, the court essentially reviews the issue de novo, and neither party has the burden of proving a change in circumstances when the reservation is later invoked. The recipient only needs to meet the normal statutory requirements for establishing maintenance eligibility and amount.

Minnesota Statutes § 518.552 provides the framework for all maintenance decisions, requiring courts to consider factors like the recipient’s earning capacity, the standard of living during marriage, and the time needed for education or training. When a court reserves maintenance, these statutory standards remain the benchmark for any future award, but the analysis starts fresh rather than focusing on what has changed since the original order.

The Curtis Correction: When Courts Get It Wrong

In 2016, the Minnesota Supreme Court encountered a case that illustrated both the importance of reservations and the consequences of failing to consider them properly. Patricia Curtis* had been married for decades when her marriage ended, leaving her with substantial assets but an uncertain financial future. The trial court looked at her current situation and concluded she could support herself—if she changed her investment strategy and achieved certain assumed returns on her investments.

The district court’s reasoning seemed logical on its face: Patricia had money, and if she managed it properly, she could live comfortably without maintenance. But the court made a crucial error—it refused to reserve jurisdiction over spousal maintenance based on its assumptions about her future investment performance. The court treated her financial independence as a foregone conclusion rather than acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in investment-based income.

The Minnesota Supreme Court recognized the problem with this approach. In Curtis v. Curtis, 887 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. 2016), the Court directed that the issue of a reservation should be reviewed on remand, acknowledging that Patricia’s apparent self-sufficiency might prove temporary or illusory. The Court understood that requiring someone to achieve specific investment returns as a condition of avoiding maintenance obligations created an unreasonable burden—what if the markets crashed? What if her health required expensive care that forced her to liquidate investments? What if interest rates dropped and made her assumed income impossible to achieve?

Patricia’s situation embodied the classic case for a maintenance reservation. She appeared financially secure in the short term, but her long-term security depended on factors entirely beyond her control. The Supreme Court noted that this consideration of a reservation is consistent with the court’s opinion in Lyon, referencing the earlier case that established reservations as appropriate when a spouse’s current assets might prove insufficient over time.

The Curtis decision sent a clear message to trial courts: apparent financial independence based on assumptions about future investment performance should not foreclose the possibility of future maintenance needs. Patricia might never need maintenance, but the court should preserve that option rather than gambling her financial security on market performance.

Navigating Uncertainty: The Maiers Method

Even before the legal landscape fully embraced step reductions in the Passolt decision, Minnesota courts were grappling with the fundamental uncertainty of predicting when and how well someone would achieve financial independence after divorce. The 2009 Court of Appeals decision in Maiers v. Maiers illustrates how thoughtful courts can use reservations to address this uncertainty constructively.

Linda Maiers* faced a situation familiar to many divorcing spouses: she had the potential to become self-supporting but faced an uncertain timeline for achieving that goal. The trial court believed she would eventually reach financial independence but was uncertain about the timing. Rather than making a guess that might prove wrong, the court crafted a solution that acknowledged this uncertainty directly.

The district court ordered five years of transitional spousal maintenance and reserved the issue of spousal maintenance after the five-year term. This approach gave Linda substantial support during her transition period while preserving flexibility to address whatever situation emerged after five years. The court understood that Linda’s needs might extend beyond the five-year period, but it also recognized that she might achieve independence sooner than expected.

The Court of Appeals praised this approach, noting that the reservation left the district court with the flexibility to address any inequities in its decision when the five-year term expired. The court specifically noted that any future maintenance award could consider among other things, the extent to which Ms. Maiers’s standard of living is affected by the cessation of child-support payments. Maiers v. Maiers, 775 N.W.2d 666, 670 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).

This observation highlights a crucial advantage of reservations: they allow courts to consider circumstances that might not be apparent at the time of divorce but could significantly impact the recipient’s financial situation later. Linda’s child support would eventually end, potentially creating a financial gap that wasn’t obvious during the divorce proceedings. The reservation ensured that the court could address this situation if it materialized.

The Burden Shift: How Reservations Change the Legal Landscape

One of the most significant aspects of maintenance reservations involves how they change the legal burden of proof. Normally, someone seeking to modify maintenance must prove that circumstances have substantially changed since the original order—a sometimes difficult standard to meet. But when a court reserves maintenance, it essentially reviews the issue de novo, treating the subsequent hearing as if it were the first time the court was considering maintenance rather than a modification of an existing order.

This shift in burden can be decisive for recipients whose circumstances have changed in ways that might not meet the traditional “substantial change” standard. Consider a spouse who received a five-year transitional award with a reservation. At the end of five years, she might be working and earning income, but perhaps not enough to maintain even a modest lifestyle. Under normal modification standards, she might struggle to prove that her circumstances had changed substantially—after all, the original order anticipated that she would be working by this point.

But with a reservation, the analysis changes completely. The court doesn’t ask whether her circumstances have changed since the original order; instead, it applies the normal statutory standards as if considering maintenance for the first time. The statutory burdens for proving the amount and duration of spousal maintenance still exist, as established in McMahon v. McMahon, 339 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. Ct. App. 1983), but the recipient doesn’t have to prove that anything has changed since the divorce.

This distinction reflects a fundamental insight about post-divorce financial planning: sometimes the most important question isn’t whether circumstances have changed, but whether the original predictions about financial independence proved accurate. A reservation acknowledges that courts make educated guesses about future earning capacity and financial needs, and those guesses don’t always prove correct.

Modern Innovations: Indefinite Awards with De Novo Review

Minnesota courts continue to evolve their approach to maintenance reservations, developing new hybrid arrangements that combine elements of traditional awards with reservation-style flexibility. Another hybrid being used recently is an award of indefinite spousal maintenance with a de novo review of the amount and duration in a period of years.

This approach represents a sophisticated response to the challenges of long-term maintenance planning. Rather than requiring the recipient to prove changed circumstances to modify an ongoing award, the court builds in a scheduled fresh look at the entire maintenance question. The recipient continues to receive support during the interim period, but both parties know that the court will reconsider the entire arrangement at a specified future date.

This method addresses several common problems with traditional maintenance awards. Recipients gain security during the interim period, knowing that their support won’t be terminated suddenly. Payors gain assurance that the arrangement won’t become permanent without periodic review. Courts gain flexibility to adjust awards based on how circumstances actually develop rather than being locked into predictions that may prove inaccurate.

The de novo review approach also acknowledges that some situations require ongoing support but with uncertain long-term needs. A spouse dealing with health issues might need indefinite maintenance but with amounts that should be reviewed periodically as medical treatments prove more or less effective. A spouse caring for a disabled child might need ongoing support but with amounts that should be adjusted as the child’s needs change over time.

Strategic Considerations for Divorcing Spouses

For spouses navigating Minnesota’s maintenance system, understanding reservations can significantly impact both immediate financial security and long-term planning. Reservations aren’t automatic—they require specific consideration and findings by the court. Both parties need to understand when reservations might be appropriate and how they affect future legal proceedings.

If you’re seeking maintenance, consider whether your situation involves significant uncertainty about future financial needs. Are you depending on investment income that might fluctuate? Are you facing health issues that could affect your earning capacity? Are you caring for family members whose needs might change over time? These situations might warrant requesting a reservation even if you don’t currently need maintenance.

If you’re likely to pay maintenance, understand that reservations aren’t necessarily bad for you. They can provide more predictability than indefinite awards by ensuring that future maintenance decisions are based on actual circumstances rather than outdated assumptions. A reservation might result in no future maintenance if the recipient achieves genuine financial independence, while an indefinite award might continue indefinitely without meaningful review.

Both parties benefit from understanding that reservations shift the legal burden for future proceedings. If you’re seeking maintenance under a reservation, you won’t need to prove changed circumstances, but you will need to meet the normal statutory standards for maintenance eligibility and amount. If you’re opposing maintenance under a reservation, you can’t simply argue that circumstances haven’t changed since the divorce—you’ll need to address the recipient’s current financial situation and needs.

The Human Side of Legal Flexibility

Behind every maintenance reservation lies a recognition that human lives rarely unfold according to legal predictions. Patricia Curtis faced uncertainty about investment returns beyond her control. Linda Maiers needed time to establish her earning capacity with no guarantee of when that might happen. These cases remind us that divorce often requires people to rebuild their lives under conditions of significant uncertainty.

Reservations provide a legal framework for managing this uncertainty constructively. They acknowledge that courts cannot predict the future with perfect accuracy while still requiring recipients to meet genuine standards for maintenance eligibility. They balance the payor’s interest in avoiding indefinite obligations with the recipient’s need for security in an uncertain world.

Perhaps most importantly, reservations recognize that financial independence after divorce is often a process rather than an event. Someone might achieve self-sufficiency for a period, then face unexpected challenges that threaten their financial security. Rather than forcing them to prove that their circumstances have changed substantially, reservations allow courts to address these situations based on current needs and capabilities.

The evolution of maintenance reservations in Minnesota reflects broader changes in how courts think about post-divorce financial planning. Rather than treating maintenance as either necessary or unnecessary, courts increasingly recognize that financial needs can change over time in ways that don’t always fit traditional legal categories. Reservations provide tools for addressing these changes while protecting the legitimate interests of both parties.

As Minnesota courts continue to refine their approach to maintenance reservations, they demonstrate growing sophistication in addressing the complex financial realities of modern divorce. The key insight underlying all these developments is simple but profound: sometimes the most important decision about spousal maintenance is not what to award today, but what options to preserve for tomorrow.

📚 Citations

• Curtis v. Curtis, 887 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. 2016) (directing reconsideration of maintenance reservation when trial court based denial on assumptions about investment performance) • Maiers v. Maiers, 775 N.W.2d 666 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (upholding transitional maintenance with reservation to address timing uncertainty about recipient’s self-sufficiency) • McMahon v. McMahon, 339 N.W.2d 898 (Minn. Ct. App. 1983) (establishing that statutory burdens for proving maintenance amount and duration apply even under reservations) • Lyon v. Lyon, 439 N.W.2d 18 (Minn. 1989) (establishing that reservations are appropriate when spouse’s current assets might prove insufficient in the future) • Minnesota Statutes § 518.552 (2024) (providing statutory framework for spousal maintenance awards, including factors courts must consider in determining eligibility and amount)

*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.