What happens when a spouse chooses not to work full-time after divorce in Minnesota?

A recurring question in Minnesota family law is whether that spouse can maintain a part-time schedule or must rejoin the workforce fully. Courts have grappled with this issue through a series of important decisions. The cases below explore how Minnesota law addresses earning potential, personal responsibility, and fairness in spousal maintenance.

For Erica Schallinger*, the divorce didn’t just mean the end of a long marriage—it marked the beginning of a financial reality she hadn’t expected. Erica had been working part-time for years, relying heavily on her spouse’s full-time income. After the separation, she hoped she might continue with her same limited hours, assuming that the financial arrangement during the marriage could carry forward. But her ex-spouse, Thomas Schallinger*, argued otherwise. He believed Erica had the education, health, and experience to work full-time—and that she should.

In Schallinger v. Schallinger, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s practical approach, holding that “where a spouse is not working full-time, but is employable full-time without additional training, the court may use full-time earning capacity in determining spousal maintenance.” (Schallinger v. Schallinger, No. A04-59, 2004 WL 1832716, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2004)). The court recognized that when finances must stretch to cover two households, it is only fair that both parties contribute to their full ability.

This concept—that a spouse choosing not to work full-time must sometimes “share the pain” of that shortfall—is echoed in the case of Jenna Rauenhorst*. After her divorce, Jenna argued that her past limited employment should determine what was considered “appropriate” for her going forward. But in Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst, the court clarified that “employment during the marriage is a significant factor, but it is not an absolute limitation on imputing income when determining spousal maintenance.” (Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst, 724 N.W.2d 541, 546 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)). Courts must look at whether a spouse could reasonably earn more right now—and if they can, their earning potential should be factored into the maintenance calculation.

This thread of accountability is reinforced in Passolt v. Passolt. Michelle Passolt*, a 52-year-old mother who had spent decades working part-time while raising her children, earned about $3,000 a year as a fitness instructor. Her husband, a high-income earner, made more than $500,000 annually. While Michelle hoped that her minimal work history might preserve her post-divorce lifestyle, the court reached a different conclusion. It found she could reenter the workforce and, with modest retraining, earn closer to $37,000 annually.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals firmly stated in Passolt v. Passolt that “the ability of a spouse seeking maintenance to become self-supporting must be evaluated based on the obligee’s actual earning capacity at the time of divorce, regardless of their employment history during the marriage.” (Passolt v. Passolt, 804 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)). Further, the court clarified that Carrick and Maurer ‘were meant to apply only to the period between separation and the final decree of divorce.’ (Id. at 22). Thus, when it comes to setting permanent spousal maintenance after divorce, the statutory standard in Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(b)—which requires consideration of the obligee’s ability to meet their needs through appropriate employment—must be applied.

These cases offer a unified caution to family law practitioners: If a spouse can secure full-time employment without retraining, applying their earning capacity is not an imputation of income—it’s a statutory requirement. And when one spouse chooses to restrict their earning potential in a way that creates financial strain, they must often accept a greater share of that burden.

Citations:

• Schallinger v. Schallinger, No. A04-59, 2004 WL 1832716, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2004) (“Where a spouse is not working full-time, but is employable full-time without additional training, the court may use full-time earning capacity in determining spousal maintenance.”)
• Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst, 724 N.W.2d 541, 546 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (“Employment during the marriage is a significant factor, but it is not an absolute limitation on imputing income when determining spousal maintenance.”)
• Passolt v. Passolt, 804 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011) (“The ability of a spouse seeking maintenance to become self-supporting must be evaluated based on the obligee’s actual earning capacity at the time of divorce, regardless of their employment history during the marriage.” and “Carrick and Maurer were meant to apply only to the period between separation and the final decree of divorce.”)
• Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(b) (Requires courts to consider the earning capacity of the spouse seeking maintenance.)
• *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.