What’s the Difference Between a Karon Waiver and a Complete Waiver of Spousal Maintenance in Minnesota?

Not all spousal maintenance waivers are created equal, and understanding the distinction between different types of waivers can mean the difference between financial security and unexpected legal vulnerability in your Minnesota divorce.

Two Different Legal Concepts, Two Different Purposes

When divorcing couples discuss “waiving spousal maintenance,” they’re often talking about two fundamentally different legal concepts that serve distinct purposes and carry different risks. A Karon waiver addresses the modification of existing spousal maintenance, while a complete waiver addresses whether spousal maintenance should exist at all. The difference isn’t just semantic—it’s the distinction between flexibility and finality, between partial protection and total surrender of rights.

Understanding this difference is crucial because using the wrong type of waiver can leave you legally exposed in ways you never intended. Imagine discovering years after your divorce that what you thought was a simple agreement to forgo spousal maintenance actually left the door open for your ex-spouse to seek support in the future, or conversely, that an overly broad waiver eliminated protections you might desperately need if circumstances change.

The Flexible Framework: Understanding Karon Waivers

Karon waivers, governed by Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 5, are sophisticated legal tools designed to provide selective protection against future modifications while preserving some flexibility for truly extraordinary circumstances. These waivers recognize that life is unpredictable and that completely eliminating all possibility of change might be neither fair nor practical.

Consider a couple where both spouses have stable careers and want certainty about their financial obligations. They might negotiate a Karon waiver that prevents modifications based on routine changes in income but preserves the right to seek adjustment in cases of disability or other catastrophic circumstances. This approach provides the paying spouse with reasonable predictability while protecting the receiving spouse from complete destitution if life takes an unexpected turn.

Karon waivers can be tailored to address specific concerns. Some couples waive only modifications to the duration of maintenance, agreeing that support will end on a specific date regardless of circumstances, while preserving the right to adjust the amount if significant changes occur. Others might waive modifications to the amount while allowing for extensions of duration in extraordinary situations.

These waivers can also be conditional, tied to the performance of other obligations in the divorce settlement. For instance, a spouse might agree to waive modification rights only if the other party completes agreed-upon debt payments or property transfers. This creates accountability and ensures that the waiver is part of a comprehensive settlement where both parties fulfill their obligations.

The sophistication of Karon waivers reflects their purpose: they’re designed for situations where spousal maintenance is appropriate and necessary, but the parties want to limit future litigation while preserving essential protections. They acknowledge that while routine modifications might be undesirable, some safety net should remain for truly exceptional circumstances.

The Complete Surrender: Total Waivers of Spousal Maintenance

A complete waiver of spousal maintenance is an entirely different creature. This isn’t about limiting future modifications—it’s about determining that no spousal maintenance is appropriate in the first place. These waivers typically occur when a spouse has sufficient earnings or property to be financially independent, making ongoing support unnecessary.

When a party completely waives spousal maintenance, “this is not a ‘Karon waiver,’ and the decree should not use this term.” The distinction matters because complete waivers don’t require the same statutory protections and findings that Karon waivers demand. A spouse who doesn’t need financial support can simply agree that none will be awarded, without the complex procedural safeguards designed to protect economically vulnerable parties.

Consider a high-earning professional whose spouse also has a substantial career and receives significant property in the divorce settlement. This person might completely waive any claim to spousal maintenance because they simply don’t need it. Their waiver isn’t about preventing future modifications—it’s about acknowledging that maintenance isn’t warranted under their circumstances.

The legal framework for complete waivers is straightforward because the underlying rationale is simple: if someone doesn’t need financial support, they shouldn’t receive it. These situations don’t require the careful balance between certainty and flexibility that characterizes Karon waivers.

The Danger of Silence: When Courts Fill in the Gaps

One of the most treacherous aspects of spousal maintenance law involves what happens when divorce decrees remain silent about maintenance entirely. Many couples and their attorneys assume that if a judgment doesn’t mention spousal maintenance, none was awarded and none can be sought in the future. This assumption can be costly.

Modern case law suggests that unless there is specific language denying the award, the issue is not decided, and spousal maintenance can yet be awarded at some future time. This means that a divorce decree that simply doesn’t mention spousal maintenance may inadvertently leave the door open for future claims.

Imagine a couple who never discussed spousal maintenance during their divorce because both had good jobs and neither felt they needed support. Years later, one spouse loses their career due to age discrimination or health issues and discovers they can petition for spousal maintenance because the original divorce decree never specifically addressed the issue. The other spouse, who thought the matter was settled, suddenly faces the possibility of ongoing financial obligations they never anticipated.

This scenario illustrates why precision in divorce documentation is essential. If parties don’t intend for spousal maintenance to be available now or in the future, the decree must explicitly state that position. Silence creates ambiguity, and ambiguity creates opportunity for future litigation.

The Risk of Misusing Legal Terms

The temptation to use familiar legal terminology incorrectly can create unexpected vulnerabilities. Using the term “Karon waiver” when you mean a complete waiver of spousal maintenance “arguably leaves a party open to the future argument that the Karon waiver was ineffective.”

This risk arises because Karon waivers have specific statutory requirements under Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 5. If a decree purports to include a “Karon waiver” but doesn’t meet these requirements, a court might find the waiver invalid. Even worse, if the decree uses Karon waiver language when the parties actually intended a complete waiver, it might create confusion about what was actually agreed to.

Consider a wealthy business owner whose spouse receives substantial property in their divorce settlement and has no need for ongoing maintenance. If their attorney drafts a “Karon waiver” instead of simply stating that no spousal maintenance is awarded, they’ve created unnecessary complexity and potential future problems. The business owner might later face arguments that the “waiver” was defective because it didn’t comply with statutory requirements that were never meant to apply to their situation.

The solution is straightforward: if there is no spousal maintenance intended, be sure to specify that none is awarded. Clear, direct language eliminates ambiguity and prevents future disputes about what the parties actually agreed to.

Practical Implications for Your Divorce

Understanding these distinctions has immediate practical implications for how you approach spousal maintenance in your divorce:

If you need spousal maintenance but want some certainty, a carefully crafted Karon waiver under Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 5 might be appropriate. You can preserve essential protections while limiting routine modifications. This approach requires careful documentation and compliance with statutory requirements, but it offers a balanced solution for couples who want both security and predictability.

If you don’t need spousal maintenance at all, don’t use Karon waiver language. Instead, have your decree explicitly state that no spousal maintenance is awarded to either party. This eliminates future uncertainty and avoids the complex requirements associated with Karon waivers.

If you’re unsure about future needs, consider whether some form of limited waiver might be appropriate, or whether leaving the issue open (with explicit language about future consideration) better serves your interests.

Never leave spousal maintenance unaddressed. Silence in your divorce decree creates uncertainty that can lead to expensive litigation years later.

The Strategic Considerations

The choice between different types of waivers often reflects broader strategic considerations in divorce settlements. Karon waivers are frequently part of comprehensive agreements where one spouse accepts limitations on future modifications in exchange for higher initial maintenance or other concessions. Complete waivers typically reflect situations where spousal maintenance simply isn’t necessary or appropriate.

These decisions also reflect different risk tolerances. Some people prefer the certainty of complete waivers, accepting that they’re giving up potential future rights in exchange for immediate clarity. Others prefer the flexibility of limited Karon waivers, maintaining some protection against catastrophic changes while providing reasonable predictability to their ex-spouse.

The key is ensuring that your chosen approach matches your actual circumstances and intentions. Using the wrong type of waiver because of legal confusion can create problems that last for decades.

Making the Right Choice for Your Situation

Before deciding between a Karon waiver and a complete waiver of spousal maintenance, honestly assess your current and likely future circumstances:

Do you currently need spousal maintenance? If so, some form of Karon waiver might be appropriate to provide your ex-spouse with reasonable certainty while preserving essential protections for you.

Are you financially independent and likely to remain so? If yes, a complete waiver might make sense, but ensure your decree explicitly states that no maintenance is awarded rather than using inappropriate Karon waiver language.

What risks are you most concerned about—future modification disputes or unexpected financial need? Your answer should guide whether you choose the flexibility of a limited Karon waiver or the finality of a complete waiver.

Remember that these decisions have long-term consequences that extend far beyond your immediate post-divorce circumstances. The waiver you choose today will affect your rights and obligations for years to come, making careful consideration and precise documentation essential.

The evolution of spousal maintenance law in Minnesota reflects the legislature’s recognition that different situations require different solutions. By understanding these distinctions and choosing the appropriate waiver for your circumstances, you can achieve both the certainty and protection that best serve your long-term interests.

📚 Citations

• Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 5 (2025) (governing the requirements for valid Karon waivers of the right to modify spousal maintenance, including specific procedural protections and findings)
• Minnesota case law regarding spousal maintenance awards and waivers (establishing that silence in divorce decrees about spousal maintenance does not preclude future awards unless specifically denied, and that complete waivers of spousal maintenance are distinct from Karon waivers)

*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.