What Should I Know Before Agreeing to Make Spousal Maintenance Non-Modifiable in Minnesota?

The decision to waive your right to modify spousal maintenance is one of the most consequential choices you’ll make in your divorce—and once you sign that waiver, there’s often no going back, even if your circumstances change dramatically.

The Foundation: Understanding Non-Modifiable Spousal Maintenance

In Minnesota divorce proceedings, spousal maintenance can typically be modified when either party experiences a substantial change in circumstances. However, parties can agree to waive their right to seek modifications, making their maintenance arrangement permanent and unchangeable. This type of agreement is commonly referred to as a “Karon waiver,” named after a landmark Minnesota case, though the legal landscape has evolved significantly since that original decision.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. For the party receiving maintenance, waiving modification rights means accepting that payments will never increase, even if their ex-spouse’s income skyrockets or their own health deteriorates. For the paying party, it means their obligation remains fixed, even if they lose their job or face financial hardship.

When the Rules Changed: Butt v. Schmidt

The legal framework governing these waivers underwent a seismic shift in the case of Butt* v. Schmidt*. David Schmidt and his ex-wife had negotiated what they believed was a standard non-modifiable maintenance agreement. Like many divorced couples, they thought they were simply following established precedent from the original Karon decision. They were wrong.

Schmidt likely believed he had secured predictability in his financial obligations—a fixed maintenance payment that wouldn’t increase regardless of future circumstances. His ex-wife probably felt she was making a reasonable trade-off, perhaps accepting a higher initial payment in exchange for giving up modification rights. Both parties entered their agreement believing they understood the rules.

However, when their case reached the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2008, the justices delivered a decision that changed everything. The court held that “Karon has been superseded by Minnesota Statutes section 518.552, subdivision 5” and emphasized that “it is important to follow the language of the statute if the waiver is to be enforceable.” Butt v. Schmidt, 747 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 2008).

This ruling meant that countless divorce agreements referencing “Karon waivers” were potentially unenforceable because they hadn’t followed the specific statutory requirements that had replaced the original case law. The human cost was immediate: parties who thought they had certainty suddenly found themselves back in legal limbo.

The Statutory Requirements: Minnesota Statutes § 518.552

Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 5, now governs these waivers with precise requirements that must be met for the waiver to be valid. The statute doesn’t just require a simple agreement between spouses—it demands specific acknowledgments and procedures that protect both parties from making uninformed decisions about their financial futures.

Under this statute, the waiver must be knowing, voluntary, and made with full disclosure of each party’s financial circumstances. The law recognizes that waiving modification rights is such a significant decision that it requires heightened protections, similar to those used in prenuptial agreements.

The practical effect is that couples can no longer simply agree to “Karon waivers” in casual negotiations. Instead, they must navigate a more complex legal framework designed to ensure that both parties truly understand what they’re giving up.

The Devil in the Details: Ferguson v. Ferguson

Sometimes even when parties try to follow the rules, critical details can derail their agreements. This harsh reality became clear in Ferguson* v. Ferguson*, where a couple’s attempt to create a non-modifiable maintenance arrangement fell apart due to incomplete documentation.

The Fergusons had likely spent hours in mediation, working through the emotional and financial complexities of their divorce. They probably felt relieved when they finally reached an agreement and signed their term sheet, believing the hardest part was behind them. For couples in their situation, that signed document represents not just legal resolution, but emotional closure—a chance to move forward with their lives.

However, their sense of security was shattered when the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in 2016. The court found that their signed term sheet “did not include all of the factors for an enforceable waiver” and overturned the trial court’s attempt to incorporate the incomplete agreement into the final judgment and decree. Ferguson v. Ferguson, No. A15-1249, 2016 WL 4065594 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2016).

This decision illustrates a crucial principle: every element required by statute must be present in the initial agreement. It’s not enough to have the general intent to waive modification rights—the documentation must be complete and comprehensive from the beginning. The Fergusons learned this lesson the hard way, finding themselves back in litigation over issues they thought they had resolved.

The Ferguson case serves as a warning to all divorcing couples: shortcuts in documentation can be more expensive than careful preparation. When negotiating these complex waivers, every statutory requirement must be addressed in the mediation term sheet or other initial agreement documents.

Specificity Matters: Grachek v. Grachek

Even when parties believe they’ve created an airtight non-modifiable maintenance agreement, ambiguous language can create unexpected outcomes. The Grachek* case demonstrates how courts interpret these agreements strictly, sometimes in ways that surprise the original parties.

The Gracheks had negotiated what they believed was a comprehensive agreement preventing any modifications to spousal maintenance. The paying spouse probably felt confident that the maintenance amount was truly fixed, while the receiving spouse may have accepted this limitation in exchange for other concessions. Both likely assumed that “non-modifiable” meant exactly that—no changes, ever.

However, their agreement included an attachment (Appendix A) that provided for cost-of-living adjustments to the maintenance payments. When the issue reached the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2008, the court had to determine whether these automatic increases violated the non-modification agreement.

The court ruled that “a cost-of-living adjustment pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 518A.75, subdivision 1(a) on a spousal maintenance award was not precluded despite the parties’ agreement not to modify the amount of spousal maintenance.” The judges explained that “the judgment and decree in no way excluded this provision in Appendix A.” Grachek v. Grachek, 750 N.W.2d 328, 331, 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).

This decision reveals a fundamental principle about non-modifiable maintenance agreements: courts interpret waivers narrowly and will not assume broader restrictions than those explicitly stated. The Gracheks had waived the right to seek discretionary modifications based on changed circumstances, but they hadn’t specifically waived automatic adjustments that were built into their original agreement.

For divorcing couples, this case provides both a warning and an opportunity. The warning is clear: if you want to prevent all changes to maintenance, including automatic adjustments, you must explicitly state that intention. The opportunity lies in understanding that you can create hybrid arrangements—non-modifiable in some respects while allowing for predictable adjustments like cost-of-living increases.

Practical Lessons for Your Divorce

These cases illustrate several critical principles that should guide anyone considering a non-modifiable maintenance agreement:

First, precision in language is essential. General statements about waiving modification rights may not be enforceable if they don’t meet current statutory requirements. Every term must be carefully crafted to comply with Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 5.

Second, complete documentation is crucial from the beginning. The Ferguson case shows that you cannot rely on completing missing elements later in the process. All statutory requirements must be present in your initial agreement, whether that’s a mediation term sheet or another negotiated document.

Third, specificity determines scope. The Grachek decision demonstrates that courts will not assume you intended broader waivers than those you explicitly stated. If you want to prevent all types of changes—including automatic adjustments—you must say so clearly.

Finally, the consequences are permanent. Unlike most other aspects of divorce that can be revisited if circumstances change substantially, a properly executed waiver under section 518.552 typically cannot be undone. This makes the initial decision-making process critically important.

Making an Informed Decision

Before agreeing to make spousal maintenance non-modifiable, consider the long-term implications carefully. While these agreements can provide certainty and finality, they also eliminate flexibility that might be crucial if your life circumstances change significantly.

The evolution from the original Karon case to current statutory requirements reflects the legislature’s recognition that these decisions require enhanced protections. The additional procedural safeguards aren’t bureaucratic obstacles—they’re designed to ensure that both parties fully understand the magnitude of what they’re agreeing to give up.

Whether you’re the party who would pay or receive maintenance, remember that waiving modification rights affects not just your immediate post-divorce finances, but potentially decades of your future financial security. The cases discussed here show that while these waivers can be valuable tools for achieving finality in divorce, they must be approached with careful attention to both legal requirements and long-term consequences.

📚 Citations

• Butt v. Schmidt, 747 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 2008) (holding that Karon has been superseded by Minnesota Statutes section 518.552, subdivision 5, and emphasizing the importance of following statutory language for enforceable waivers)
• Ferguson v. Ferguson, No. A15-1249, 2016 WL 4065594 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2016) (overturning trial court’s incorporation of signed term sheet into judgment and decree because the term sheet did not include all statutory factors required for an enforceable modification waiver)
• Grachek v. Grachek, 750 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (finding that cost-of-living adjustments were not precluded by parties’ agreement not to modify spousal maintenance amount, where such adjustments were included in an attachment to the judgment and decree)
• Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 5 (2025) (governing the requirements for valid waivers of the right to modify spousal maintenance in Minnesota divorce proceedings)
• Minnesota Statutes § 518A.75, subdivision 1(a) (2025) (providing for cost-of-living adjustments to support awards)

*The identities of these parties and facts of their matter were publicly published and thus not confidential. While the case holdings and statutory references are accurate, creative liberty has been imposed for the emotional portrayal of the parties.