|
Alimony in Minnesota
Alimony in Minnesota
By Maury D. Beaulier, Esq.
Alimony Index:
(Click on a Topic)
Alimony Overview
Current Spousal Maintenance Law
Awards,
Denials & Modifications of Spousal Maintenance
Waivers of Spousal Maintenance
Spousal Maintenance Buy-Outs
Imputing Income and Alimony to an Unemployed Obligor
Tax Consequence of Alimony
Vocational Evaluations
How To Present Your Spousal
Maintenance Case
" Alimony"
is the term used in many states for financial support paid to a ex-spouse after
a divorce. In Minnesota the term "alimony" has been replaced with the term
"Spousal Maintenance." The terms are synonymous. In some states, an
award of alimony may be based on marital fault.
As a result, issues such as dating,
infidelity or even abuse are not factors considered in determining whether to
award spousal maintenance.
Minnesota, however, is a "no
fault" divorce state. As a result, issues such as dating, infidelity or even
abuse are not factors considered in determining whether to award spousal
maintenance.
As recent as 1984, Minnesota
Statutes relating to awards of spousal maintenance were interpreted by the
Minnesota Courts of Appeal as disfavoring awards of permanent spousal
maintenance. At that time, in order for the Court to award permanent spousal
maintenance, it had to find that exceptional circumstances existed warranting an
award of permanent financial support. To demonstrate that an exceptional case
existed, the party seeking the award of permanent maintenance had to show that
he/she had little likelihood of becoming self-sufficient.
Since 1984 Minnesota Statues have
been modified by the state legislature to favor permanent spousal
maintenance awards when certain circumstances exist.
In 1985
amendments to Minnesota Statutes modified the spousal maintenance statute to
require trial courts to consider the standard of living established during the
marriage when awarding spousal maintenance. The 1985 amendments also added
language requiring an award of permanent spousal maintenance where there is
uncertainty regarding the need for a permanent award. In short, if there was any
question whether permanent spousal maintenance was necessary, that uncertainty
was to be resolved in favor of a permanent spousal maintenance award.
Unlike Minnesota's child support
statutes, there are no percentage guidelines to determine when spousal
maintenance is appropriate or at what level. In Minnesota, trial courts have
broad discretion in deciding whether to award maintenance and in determining its
duration and amount. As a result, spousal maintenance often becomes one of the
most contested issues in divorce proceedings.
Currently, spousal maintenance
awards are granted pursuant to
Minnesota
Statutes § 518.552 if the spouse seeking maintenance demonstrates that he or
she:
- lacks sufficient property,
including marital property apportioned as part of the divorce to provide for
the reasonable needs of the spouse considering the standard of living
established during the marriage, especially, but not limited to, a period of
training or education; or
is unable to provide
adequate self-support, after considering the standard of living established
during the marriage and all relevant circumstance, through appropriate
employment, or
is the custodian of a child
whose condition and circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not
be required to seek employment outside the home.
In determining the amount and
duration of spousal maintenance, Minnesota statutes require that Courts address
all relevant factors. The statute specifically identifies the following as
relevant issues in determining spousal maintenance:
- The financial resources of
the spouse seeking maintenance;
- The amount of time that is
necessary for the spouse seeking maintenance to acquire necessary skills or
education to find appropriate employment;
- The age and physical and
emotional health of the recipient spouse;
- The standard of living
established during the marriage;
- The length of the marriage;
- The contribution and
economic sacrifices of a homemaker including loss of seniority, retirement
benefits and other employment opportunities foregone while working at home
- The financial resources
available to the spouse from whom
maintenance is sought.
No single factor is dispositive and the Courts must weigh all factors giving
appropriate weight to each .
Awards,
Denials and Modifications of Maintenance
If the parties are unable to
resolve disputes related to spousal maintenance, after a trial that considers
the factors set out in the previous section, a court may:
- award
spousal maintenance;
reserve
spousal maintenance (not award maintenance currently but leave the matter
open for further review);
deny
spousal maintenance.
Awards of spousal maintenance may
be "temporary" or "rehabilitative", designed to rehabilitate the
spouse so that he/she may become self-supporting, or "permanent."
No matter whether spousal
maintenance is awarded, denied or reserved after a trial, the issue may be
always be readdressed and spousal maintenance modified upon a showing that there
has been a substantial change in circumstance making the original award (or
denial) unreasonable or unfair.
From a practical standpoint, it
is unlikely that a Court denying spousal maintenance would later change that
determination absent compelling circumstances. A compelling circumstance may
include a critical illness befalling the party seeking maintenance which renders
that person incapable of working or providing for their own support. There would
also have to be a showing that the person from whom maintenance is sought has
the ability to contribute.
Temporary awards of spousal
maintenance usually dictate factual presumptions on which the award is based.
For example, maintenance may be awarded for a period of five (5) years at a
certain level predicated on the recipient enrolling in and completed educational
courses and finding employment in that period of time. Either party may bring
the matter back before the Court if the recipient becomes self supporting at an
earlier date or, through no fault of his/her own, fails to find employment
within the designated period. Orders setting forth detailed educational and
employment time lines on which the maintenance award is based tend to favor the
person paying spousal maintenance since the recipient must demonstrate good
cause why the time lines were not followed or achieved to extend the spousal
maintenance beyond that period.
There
are only one way to preclude the Court from having jurisdiction to award spousal
maintenance. Minnesota Statutes relating to spousal maintenance awards
specifically allow the parties to enter into a private agreements that preclude
or limit spousal maintenance awards. These agreements may take the form of
properly executed prenuptial agreements or agreements reached as part of the
divorce proceedings.
Unfortunately, such agreements are disfavored by Minnesota Courts. Any court
that is asked to enforce such an agreement must determine that the stipulation
is fair and equitable and supported by adequate consideration after full
disclosure of each party’s financial circumstance.
Since the Court determines what is fair and equitable at the time of the
divorce, it is particularly unlikely that prenuptial agreements executed years
in advance will carry much weight. What is fair and equitable at the time the
marriage begins may not be fair and equitable when it ends.
In most cases, the interests of
persons asked to pay spousal maintenance are better served by offering an
immediate buy-out of spousal maintenance in return for a waiver that would
preclude the court from modifying spousal maintenance in the future. This
buy-out may occur as part of a property settlement that favors the party seeking
maintenance.
To determine what amount to offer
or accept as a buy-out, it is important to consider two factors:
- the present value of the
asset
- the tax consequences
Present value refers to the value
of a dollar today as compared to the value at some point in the future.
Remember, a dollar paid today is more valuable than a dollar received next year
or even next week since the money properly invested would gain interest over
that period. As a direct result, a buy-out of spousal maintenance will always be
less than the total value of the spousal maintenance paid over time.
Imputation of income is a harsh
result where the Court requires a party to pay spousal maintenance (or child
support) based on earning capacity rather than true income. For
example, if one party quits a job and reduces his/her income voluntarily or if a
party fails to seek gainful employment though able-bodied, the Court may base
that person’s income on earning capacity. Oftentimes, the parson’s prior work
history plays a pivotal role in determining what they have the ability to earn.
To award maintenance based on
earning capacity, the court must make specific findings that an obligor is
underemployed in "bad faith." In fact, Minnesota Statutes § 518.51, Subd. 5B(d)
plainly states that "a parent is not considered voluntarily
unemployed or underemployed upon a showing by the parent that the unemployment
or underemployment:
- is temporary and will
ultimately lead to an increase in income; or
- represents a bona fide
career change that outweighs the adverse effect of that parent's diminished
income on the child."
Evidence that may be presented
to demonstrate "bad faith" or earning capacity include:
Past employment history;
Educational history;
Documents or awards related
to education or work achievements;
Documents demonstrating that
previous employment was voluntarily terminated.
Evidence that may be presented
to rebut allegations that a person is self-limiting his or her income in "bad
faith" include:
- Documents demonstrating that
the termination of prior employment was involuntary (eg. Documents
indicating that the person was fired or was required to quit for medical
reasons);
- Any documentation of efforts
to seek substitute employment (eg. Job applications, rejection letters,
newspaper ads);
- Documentation that job
skills are outdated for a job similar to the one that was terminated.
In deciding whether to “buy-out”
the other party’s spousal maintenance, it is important to consider the tax
consequences.
Property or proceeds exchanged as
part of a property settlement is not taxable event. The proceeds paid are not
deductible to the payor or taxable to the recipient. By contrast, the payment of
spousal maintenance is a taxable event. Spousal maintenance is tax deductible by
the person paying. It is not included as income for the obligor giving that
party a dollar for dollar offset against his/her earnings. By contrast, spousal
maintenance that is paid is included as taxable income by the person that
receives it.
It is also important to note that attorney’s fees incurred by a party seeking
spousal maintenance may be tax deductible as an expense incurred for the
production of income. You may wish to speak with your attorney regarding that
issue.
To determine the skill level of a spouse seeking spousal maintenance, it may
be necessary to have a vocational evaluation performed. If requested by a party,
it is likely that a Court will require the party seeking spousal maintenance to
cooperate with such an assessment.
A vocational evaluation is conducted by a Qualified Rehabilitative Consultant
(QRC). During the evaluation stage, the QRC will administer a series of
questionnaires designed to highlight the vocational strengths and weaknesses of
the party being tested. With theses test results, the QRC examines the fields of
employment in which the person examined is likely to have the most success. The
evaluation also analyzes the past work and educational history of the individual
as well as that person’s employment goals.
After the evaluation has been performed, the QRC drafts a report that
identifies the fields in which the tested person has demonstrated strengths. The
report then analyzes the field to determine what additional education is
necessary, if any; the likely period of time for completing that education; the
costs associated with the education; and the likely wage that the tested person
is likely to achieve after education and training.
The results of a vocational evaluation may be challenged at trial. However,
these independent experts hold great sway with the Court in determining the
amount and duration of spousal maintenance awards.
As previously stated, some relevant factors considered by the court in
deciding whether to award spousal maintenance include the finances of the
parties, the education levels of the parties, the work histories of the parties,
the health of the parties and the standard of living the parties established
during the marriage. In order to properly document these issues at trial you
should provide the following:
- A written history of employment for both parties including a job
description, the name of the employer, the wage paid and period of time
worked;
- A written history of each party’s educational background including
schools attended, years attended and degrees or certifications achieved;
- Tax returns for each year of marriage including W-2 and 1099 forms for
each party;
- A written chronology of vacations taken during the marriage;
- Photographs and post cards of vacations taken during the marriage may
provide a pictorial history to supplement the written history;
- A written list of assets and luxury items owned at any time during the
marriage (even if not presently owned) including the date that each item was
acquired, its value and the date of disposition. You should include items
such as jewelry, recreational vehicles, real estate, condos, interests in
businesses or corporations, and time shares;
- Financial documents verifying the value of luxury assets;
- Financial account records demonstrating the value of each item;
- Checking account registers and credit card statements demonstrating the
spending habits of the parties;
- A written list of necessary monthly expenses.
ENDNOTES:
- McClelland v.
McClelland, 359
N.W. 2d 7 (Minn. 1984)
Minnesota Statutes §
518.552, subd. 1, 2.
Minnesota Statutes §
518.552, subd. 3.
Minnesota Statutes §
518.552, subd. 1 (1998).
Minnesota Statutes §
518.552, subd. 2.
Minnesota Statutes §
518.552, subd. 5.
|