What makes a waiver of spousal maintenance enforceable under Minnesota law?

The unpredictability of spousal maintenance can feel overwhelming for divorcing couples—one spouse fearing they’ll be trapped in indefinite payments while the other worries about losing support when they need it most. In Minnesota, couples can escape this uncertainty by agreeing to waive their right to modify maintenance, but this escape route comes with strict requirements and permanent consequences that many couples don’t fully understand until it’s too late.

The Birth of Certainty: Understanding Karon Waivers

In 1989, the Minnesota Supreme Court encountered a case that would fundamentally change how divorcing couples could approach spousal maintenance. The Karon* family faced a situation familiar to many divorcing spouses: both parties desperately wanted certainty about their financial futures, but traditional maintenance awards left too many questions unanswered. Could the amount be increased if circumstances changed? Could it be decreased? How long would the obligation last?

Rather than accepting this uncertainty, the Karons crafted an agreement that would eliminate the court’s ability to modify their maintenance arrangement. They essentially told the court: “We’ve decided what’s fair, and we never want to revisit this decision, no matter what happens in our lives.” This agreement would protect the paying spouse from potential increases while guaranteeing the recipient spouse a specific amount for a defined period.

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1989), held that parties may make private agreements to limit the modification of the amount or duration of spousal maintenance. This ruling recognized that adults should have the freedom to structure their financial obligations according to their own priorities and risk tolerance, even if that meant giving up protections that the law would otherwise provide.

The Karon decision was later codified in Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 5, which allows parties to waive the right to modify the amount or duration of spousal maintenance. But this freedom comes with significant responsibilities. The uncertainties of ongoing spousal maintenance are frequently intolerable for one or both parties, and Karon waivers provide an escape from that uncertainty—but only if couples follow strict legal requirements.

The Six Pillars: What Makes a Waiver Enforceable

Creating an enforceable Karon waiver requires more than just agreeing to waive modification rights. The agreement must meet six specific requirements, each designed to ensure that both parties understand what they’re giving up and that the arrangement is fundamentally fair.

Most importantly, these limitations can only be achieved by an agreement between the parties that is adopted by the court and incorporated into the judgment and decree of dissolution. Simply calling something a “Karon waiver” in a settlement agreement isn’t enough—the court must make specific findings about each required element. Just saying something is a Karon waiver does not make it so.

The six requirements create a comprehensive framework for ensuring that waivers are genuine and fair:

First, the waiver must be fair and equitable. This doesn’t mean the maintenance amount must be exactly what a court would order, but it must fall within a reasonable range given the parties’ circumstances. A waiver that leaves one spouse destitute while the other maintains a luxurious lifestyle likely won’t meet this standard.

Second, the waiver must be supported by consideration. Each party must receive something of value in exchange for giving up their right to seek modifications. This might be a specific maintenance amount, property distribution, or other financial arrangements that justify the waiver.

Third, the waiver must be reached after full disclosure of each party’s financial circumstances. Both parties must understand the complete financial picture before agreeing to give up modification rights. Hidden assets or undisclosed debts can invalidate an otherwise valid waiver.

Fourth, the waiver must contain an express and immediate contractual waiver of the right to modify spousal maintenance. Vague language about “final” settlements isn’t enough—the agreement must specifically state that the parties are waiving their right to seek modifications under Minnesota law.

Fifth, the waiver must be a voluntary and intentional waiver. Courts must be satisfied that both parties understood what they were giving up and made the decision freely, without coercion or undue pressure.

Finally, the waiver must immediately divest the court of jurisdiction over maintenance modification. The court must specifically find that it no longer has authority to modify the maintenance arrangement, creating a permanent legal barrier to future changes.

The Santillan Lesson: Why Specific Findings Matter

The importance of meeting every requirement became clear in the 1997 Court of Appeals decision in Santillan v. Martine. The parties in that case thought they had created a valid Karon waiver, but they learned a harsh lesson about the difference between good intentions and enforceable agreements.

Maria Santillan* and her husband had negotiated what they believed was a comprehensive settlement that included a Karon waiver. They wanted the certainty that such waivers provide, and they thought their agreement would protect them from future maintenance disputes. However, when circumstances changed and one party sought to modify the arrangement, they discovered that their waiver wasn’t enforceable.

The Court of Appeals held that without specific findings on each of the required factors, these agreements are typically not upheld. Santillan v. Martine, 560 N.W.2d 749 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). The court emphasized that it is critical to include specific findings on each of these factors in the stipulated judgment and decree. Maria and her husband had checked most of the boxes, but “most” wasn’t enough when it came to permanently waiving fundamental legal rights.

The Santillan decision illustrates why careful drafting and specific court findings are essential for Karon waivers. Couples might assume that their intentions are clear from the overall agreement, but courts require explicit findings about each element. The waiver must be fair—how do we know? The parties must have had full financial disclosure—what evidence supports this? The waiver must be voluntary—what shows this wasn’t the result of coercion?

From Maria’s perspective, the Santillan outcome likely felt like a betrayal. She had negotiated in good faith and believed she had certainty about her financial future. When that certainty evaporated due to technical legal requirements, she faced exactly the kind of ongoing litigation that Karon waivers are designed to prevent.

The Double-Edged Sword: Benefits and Risks

When properly executed, Karon waivers provide remarkable protection for both parties. If the appropriate findings are included, these agreements are honored by the courts, unless extraordinary circumstances justify reopening the judgment under Minnesota Statutes § 518.145 or the parties agree to restore the court’s jurisdiction under Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 5.

For paying spouses, Karon waivers offer protection from future increases in maintenance obligations. Even if the recipient spouse’s financial situation deteriorates or the paying spouse’s income increases dramatically, the maintenance amount remains fixed. This predictability allows for long-term financial planning and provides peace of mind about future obligations.

For recipient spouses, Karon waivers can provide security about receiving specific amounts for defined periods. Rather than worrying about whether changed circumstances might reduce their maintenance, they can count on the agreed-upon payments. This certainty can be particularly valuable for older spouses who may have limited opportunities to increase their earning capacity.

However, Karon waivers have shortcomings that should be considered carefully. The most significant limitation is their permanence: once the waiver is given, it is enforceable for both parties. This permanence can create serious problems when life doesn’t unfold as expected during the divorce negotiations.

Consider David*, a successful executive who agreed to pay his wife $5,000 monthly for ten years with a Karon waiver. At the time of divorce, this seemed reasonable given his $200,000 annual income. But three years later, David loses his job during an economic downturn and can only find part-time work earning $30,000 annually. If a paying spouse’s circumstances change, the obligation remains. David cannot seek a reduction in his maintenance obligation, even though paying $5,000 monthly on a $30,000 income is financially impossible.

The flip side creates equally serious problems for recipient spouses. The agreements deprive the court of jurisdiction to ever address the subject, meaning that if the paying spouse simply stops making payments, the recipient’s options are limited. While there is no room for the paying spouse to modify their obligation, there is the harsh reality that if the payment is not made because of economic inability to pay, little viable recourse may exist for the financially dependent spouse.

The Modern Reality: Declining Popularity

The economic uncertainties of recent decades have exposed the limitations of Karon waivers in ways that weren’t apparent when the concept was first developed. The appearance of security may be elusive in these changing economic times. What seemed like rock-solid financial arrangements during the divorce can become impossible to maintain when economic circumstances change dramatically.

As finances and employment become less certain, these waivers have declined in practice. The 2008 financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and other economic disruptions have shown how quickly seemingly stable financial situations can change. A spouse who seemed financially secure during divorce negotiations might face job loss, business failure, or health crises that make their maintenance obligations impossible to meet.

The decline in Karon waivers reflects growing recognition that financial flexibility might be more valuable than financial certainty in an uncertain world. Rather than locking in arrangements that can’t be modified, many couples now prefer traditional maintenance awards that can be adjusted when circumstances change substantially.

This shift doesn’t mean Karon waivers are never appropriate, but it does suggest that couples should carefully consider whether they’re truly prepared for the permanent consequences of waiving modification rights. The certainty that Karon waivers provide comes at the cost of flexibility that might prove essential if life circumstances change dramatically.

Strategic Considerations for Modern Divorcing Couples

For couples considering Karon waivers, understanding both the benefits and risks is essential for making informed decisions. These waivers work best when both parties have stable financial situations and realistic expectations about their future circumstances.

Karon waivers might be appropriate when the paying spouse has very stable income (perhaps from government employment or established business ownership) and the recipient spouse’s needs are relatively predictable. They might also work well when both parties want to minimize future contact and are willing to accept some financial risk in exchange for complete certainty.

However, couples should be cautious about Karon waivers when either party faces significant financial uncertainty. Young spouses whose careers are still developing, business owners whose income fluctuates significantly, or anyone facing health issues that might affect their earning capacity should carefully consider whether they can truly afford to give up modification rights.

The technical requirements for enforceable Karon waivers also require careful attention to detail. Couples must work with experienced attorneys who understand the specific findings required and can ensure that all elements are properly documented in the court order. The Santillan decision shows that good intentions aren’t enough—the legal requirements must be met precisely.

Looking Forward: Balancing Certainty and Flexibility

The evolution of Karon waivers in Minnesota reflects broader changes in how society thinks about financial security and risk management. The original appeal of these waivers—permanent certainty about financial obligations—has been tempered by recognition that such certainty can become a trap when circumstances change dramatically.

Modern divorce planning increasingly focuses on building flexibility into financial arrangements rather than eliminating it entirely. This might involve step-down maintenance plans, periodic reviews, or hybrid arrangements that provide some certainty while preserving the ability to address major changes in circumstances.

The key insight from Minnesota’s experience with Karon waivers is that permanent solutions to temporary problems often create new problems that are even more difficult to solve. While the uncertainty of traditional maintenance awards can feel overwhelming during divorce, that uncertainty also provides valuable protection when life doesn’t unfold as expected.

For divorcing couples, the lesson is clear: certainty has a price, and that price might be higher than it initially appears. Karon waivers can provide valuable protection and peace of mind, but only for couples who truly understand what they’re giving up and are prepared to live with the permanent consequences of their decision.

The stories of the Karon family, Maria Santillan, and countless others remind us that divorce planning involves making decisions about an uncertain future based on present circumstances. While legal tools like Karon waivers can help manage this uncertainty, they cannot eliminate it entirely. The best approach often involves balancing the desire for certainty with the need for flexibility, creating arrangements that provide security while preserving the ability to adapt to life’s inevitable changes.

📚 Citations

• Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1989) (establishing that parties may make private agreements to limit modification of spousal maintenance amount or duration)
• Santillan v. Martine, 560 N.W.2d 749 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (requiring specific court findings on all elements for enforceable maintenance modification waivers)
• Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 5 (2024) (codifying the right of parties to waive modification rights for spousal maintenance and providing mechanism for restoring court jurisdiction)
• Minnesota Statutes § 518.145 (2024) (providing grounds for reopening judgments in dissolution cases)

*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.