What’s the difference between Transitional and Indefinite spousal maintenance in Minnesota, and how does a court decide which one applies in my case?

The labels matter less than you think—but the burden of proof can change everything about your financial future and your ability to create your next best life. 

The Heart of the Matter: Who Bears the Burden?

When Minnesota courts award spousal maintenance, they face a fundamental question that will shape both spouses’ lives for years to come: should the paying spouse have to prove why payments should stop, or should the receiving spouse have to prove why payments should continue?

The most important difference between indefinite and transitional spousal maintenance is the burden of proof for future modifications of spousal maintenance. This distinction, while technical, carries profound emotional and financial weight for divorcing couples.

With indefinite spousal maintenance, the paying spouse bears the burden of proving that circumstances have changed enough to justify reducing or ending the payments—whether through retirement, job loss, or other significant life changes. With transitional maintenance, the receiving spouse must prove why the payments should continue beyond the defined term, often by showing they still cannot achieve self-sufficiency despite reasonable efforts.

When Labels Don’t Tell the Whole Story: The Nardini* Case

In 1987, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard a case that would fundamentally reshape how courts think about spousal maintenance duration. The dispute centered on a woman whose future seemed uncertain, caught between a marriage that had ended and a working life that might never truly begin.

Mrs. Nardini* had limited earning capacity and little likelihood of substantially improving her financial situation. The trial court had awarded her transitional maintenance for five years, essentially betting that she would become self-supporting within that timeframe. But the Minnesota Supreme Court saw a troubling flaw in this reasoning.

The court recognized that “nothing would have changed in five years; she would still need maintenance and yet would be unable to meet her burden of proof to show that there had been a change in her circumstances.” The court held that using the future likelihood of self-support as the determining factor in choosing indefinite over transitional maintenance was essential to prevent abuse of discretion.

Mrs. Nardini’s* situation illustrated a cruel paradox: she would need to prove a change in circumstances to continue receiving maintenance, but the very reason she needed continued support was the lack of change in her ability to earn income. The Minnesota Supreme Court found this approach fundamentally unfair and reversed the trial court’s decision.

The Uncertainty Principle: When Time Isn’t Enough

The courts have developed a practical framework for understanding when each type of maintenance is appropriate. As one Minnesota Court of Appeals decision elegantly summarized: “Transitional spousal maintenance addresses uncertainty as to when, indefinite spousal maintenance addresses uncertainty as to whether someone will be self-supporting.”

This principle came into sharp focus in the 2021 case of Israni v. Sidhwani, where a physician’s life was forever altered by a traumatic brain injury. Dr. Israni* had built a successful medical practice, but her brain injury left her future ability to practice medicine profoundly uncertain.

The trial court acknowledged that it lacked sufficient evidence to predict Dr. Israni’s* recovery prospects, yet still awarded only transitional maintenance. The Court of Appeals found this reasoning contradictory and potentially devastating for Dr. Israni*. The court held that “it was error for the district court to award only transitional spousal maintenance where there was no evidence to show the wife would ever be able to regain her prior level of employment.”

Dr. Israni’s* case demonstrates how uncertainty itself can warrant indefinite maintenance. When expert testimony cannot reliably predict someone’s future earning capacity, the law errs on the side of protecting the potentially vulnerable spouse.

The Marriage Length Presumptions: A New Framework

Minnesota’s approach to spousal maintenance duration has evolved significantly with statutory changes that create rebuttable presumptions based on marriage length. Under Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 3, courts now follow a structured approach:

• Marriages under 5 years: Rebuttable presumption that no maintenance should be awarded
• Marriages of 5-20 years: Rebuttable presumption that transitional maintenance should be awarded, lasting no longer than half the marriage length
• Marriages of 20+ years: Rebuttable presumption that indefinite maintenance should be awarded

However, these presumptions don’t eliminate judicial discretion. The statute specifically provides that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to favor a transitional award of maintenance over an indefinite award, where the factors under subdivision 2 justify an indefinite award.”

Beyond the Numbers: The Human Factors

The Minnesota Supreme Court clarified in Hecker v. Hecker that the statutory framework doesn’t create an automatic presumption for indefinite spousal maintenance. Instead, courts must consider all relevant factors including “the length of the marriage, the age of the spouse, the ability to become self-supporting, and so forth” in setting the duration.

This holistic approach recognizes that every marriage and every divorce carries unique circumstances that numbers alone cannot capture. A 15-year marriage might involve a spouse who sacrificed career advancement for family responsibilities, while a 25-year marriage might involve two professionals with similar earning capacities.

The Practical Reality: What This Means for Your Case

Understanding these distinctions can help you prepare realistic expectations for your spousal maintenance case. If you’re seeking maintenance, consider:

• Your realistic prospects for achieving self-sufficiency
• The strength of expert testimony about your future earning capacity
• Whether uncertainty about your future warrants indefinite rather than transitional support

If you’re potentially paying maintenance, understand that:

• The burden of proving changed circumstances for modification depends on the type of award
• Retirement, job loss, or other major life changes may justify modification of indefinite maintenance
• Transitional awards put the burden on your former spouse to justify continuation

The Deeper Truth About Duration

Perhaps most importantly, the courts have recognized that indefinite spousal maintenance does not literally mean indefinite, and transitional spousal maintenance may become “indefinite” under the appropriate circumstances. The labels, while important for understanding burden of proof, don’t necessarily predict the actual duration of support.

What matters most is whether the receiving spouse can realistically achieve self-sufficiency, and whether that question can be answered with reasonable certainty. When the future remains genuinely uncertain, Minnesota law tends to protect the potentially vulnerable spouse by placing the burden of proof on the party seeking to end support.

The human reality behind these legal principles is that divorce often leaves people facing uncertain futures. Minnesota’s approach to spousal maintenance duration reflects a careful balance between encouraging self-sufficiency and protecting those who cannot reasonably be expected to achieve it.

*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.

📚 Citations

• Nardini v. Nardini, 414 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1987) (establishing that future likelihood of self-support determines whether indefinite or transitional maintenance is appropriate)
• Hecker v. Hecker, 568 N.W.2d 705 (Minn. 1997) (clarifying that statutory framework requires consideration of all relevant factors rather than creating presumption for indefinite maintenance)
• Maiers v. Maiers, 775 N.W.2d 666, 669 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (explaining that transitional maintenance addresses uncertainty as to when, while indefinite maintenance addresses uncertainty as to whether someone will be self-supporting)
• Israni v. Sidhwani, No. A20-0707, 2021 WL 1081779 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2021) (holding that transitional maintenance is inappropriate where there is no evidence spouse will regain prior employment capacity)
• Passolt v. Passolt, 804 N.W.2d 18 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 2011) (addressing factors for spousal maintenance duration)
• Reif v. Reif, 426 N.W.2d 227 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (establishing that realistic uncertainty warrants indefinite spousal maintenance)
• Reinke v. Reinke, 464 N.W.2d 513 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) (supporting principle that uncertainty justifies indefinite maintenance awards)
• Griepp v. Griepp, 381 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (noting that certainty or uncertainty about future earning ability is often judged by strength of expert testimony)
• Minnesota Statutes § 518.552, subdivision 3 (2025) (establishing rebuttable presumptions for spousal maintenance duration based on marriage length and requiring consideration of all relevant factors)