Lee v. Lee

Matter of In re the LEE, Appellant,

Irene LEE, Respondent. Raymond Michael No. A07-110. of Minnesota. Supreme Court 3, 2009. Dec. Weiner,

Robert L. L. Robert Weiner & Associates, MN, Minneapolis, for appel- lant. Dunn, Paul, MN,

Timothy W.J. St. respondent. Ormond, Lucas,

Michael Joan H. Minne- MN, apolis, for amicus curiae Minnesota Chapter Academy of the American of Mat- Lawyers. rimonial OPINION

MAGNUSON, Chief Justice.

This interpretation case concerns the Minnesota’s maintenance statutes application and the of these statutes to payments pen- retirement from received sion respondent Raymond funds. After retired, Michael brought Lee he a motion modify in the district court to monthly his obligation. maintenance The court low- ered obligation maintenance month per per month. $825 $700 ried, as an electrician ap- Raymond worked and the court of appealed, as a homemaker. and Elaine eliminated peals altogether. Appellant required decree parties’ dissolution holdings challenges Lee Irene in Raymond pay per to Elaine month $650 (1) Raymond’s pen- court of part maintenance. As of the divi- spousal estate, marriage, but earned before of the marital the district court sion benefits sion dissolution, earned apportioned pension are not also benefits marriage paid after the Raymond through his union while the mainte- a source of available as parties equally were married between nance, pension benefits Raymond’s share, Elaine a and parties, giving 50% marriage previously and earned leaving Raymond with a 50% share.1 should him as marital awarded to determining Ray- 1994, Raymond petitioned considered when the district not be obligation to lower his maintenance ability pay to court mond’s no unemployed he was and could because Ray- portion cannot receive Elaine monthly longer payment. afford the $650 Raymond until mond’s Raymond’s motion. In granted The court premari- the full value of has received 2004, the court to in- petitioned Elaine previously award- tal benefits and benefits Raymond’s monthly maintenance crease Finally, property. him ed to grounds Raymond on the payment challenges appeals’ the court of Elaine shortly after the had returned to work date of the of the effective modification Raymond’s maintenance court decreased order, and the district district court’s in discovered that obligation. Elaine also attorney her motion for court’s denial of previously awarded bene- addition to in part, part, reverse fees. We affirm fits, Raymond had an interest two de- remand. pension plans, the Interna- fined benefit in this case the relevant facts None of Brotherhood of Electrical Workers tional mar- Raymond Elaine and the National dispute. are in Benefit Fund and Pension Fund, of which dissolved their Benefit neither parties in 1968. The Electrical ried original di- into account they were mar- was taken in 1993. While 7, 22, 1993, provided through June 1993.” The order September court 1. On Qualified paid Domestic Relations Order to Elaine in a entered a that the benefit would be (QDRO). 15, 2003, sum, identified three The order August single lump payable on Raymond had an interest and plans in which Raymond’s earliest retirement date. As which, provisions the Inter- under the as to Plan, Compensation the order di- Deferred ERISA, Code, and the Retire- nal Revenue pay plan to administrator 50% rected 1995, might be Equity Act of Elaine ment accruing from Raymond’s account balance payee” Paul designated as "alternate St.—the 7, 14, 1968, through September June 1993. Plan, Pension the St. Electrical Construction stipulated Com- that the Deferred The Supple- Workers Paul Electrical Construction approxi- value of pensation Plan had cash Plan, and the St. Paul Electri- mental Pension 31, $2,614.54 mately on December Compen- Workers Deferred cal Construction be- provided that would The order Plan, the Pension the order sation Plan. As to Raymond the earliest re- gin reached when pay plan directed the administrator 50% age, defined in the order. tirement accruing monthly Raymond’s pension benefits QDRO pay- specifically provided also 1993, September to June time, might over be made ments called for Plan, Supplemental Pension Elaine. As to might depending on the elections plan administrator the order directed appears plans. It under make participant’s pay "that 50% elected, and neither monthly payments were plan which under this vested account balance 14, 1968, appeal. challenges party that election on September accumulated from Raymond during marriage previously Elaine asked the district vorce decree. newly- to award her 50% of the Ray- opposed awarded to Elaine. Elaine Raymond had discovered motion, mond’s asked the court to award accrued Elaine and were while life, her maintenance and also asked married. the court to order to purchase guarantee life insurance to Elaine lifetime granted

The district court Elaine’s mo- tion, retroactively upon death. per reinstated the $650 obligation, month maintenance and im- began analysis by The district court its posed obligation increased maintenance calculating incomes and per beginning month on November $825 monthly expenses parties. of the The 2003. The court also awarded Elaine a $1,674.14 court found that Elaine received Raymond’s in pen 50% interest monthly: Security pay- Social $878.50 that not sion benefits were accounted for ments and from her 50% share of $795.64 original ap in the decree.2 The court of Raymond’s pension benefits earned Lee, A04-1070, peals affirmed. Lee v. No. marriage. The court determined that (Minn.App. Apr. WL 949038 $4,022.78 Raymond monthly: received 2005). developments These are relevant $1,555 in Security Social benefits and only they to the extent that when were $2,467.78 benefits, in pension including his over, Raymond Elaine and were each pension 50% share of benefits earned dur- awarded 50% interest in all of ing marriage. Raymond’s pension benefits earned while were married —valued at The court Ray- then subtracted from per month —a valuation that nei $795.64 gross monthly portion mond’s income the party challenges. ther Raymond’s monthly pension of payment 2005, Raymond began retired and to previously Raymond awarded to as marital monthly pension payments. receive benefit property.3 adjust- court The arrived at an Raymond petitioned the district court to monthly figure Raymond ed income for monthly lower obligation, maintenance $3,227.14. arguing that his income had decreased The compared district court then retirement and Elaine’s had in- income creased, parties’ monthly in part receipt due to Elaine’s incomes with their rea- her pension share of benefits earned monthly expenses. sonable The court esti- 2. The National Electrical Benefit Fund the amount resent[ed] [Elaine] receives from (NEBF) provided Ray- Defined Lee, Benefit Plan her award of benefits.” Lee v. monthly mond with a benefit calculated based (Minn.App.2008). 749 N.W.2d In our years plan, Ray- on of service. Under the record, $795.64 view of the amount sub- per $728 received a mond benefit of month Raymond’s gross monthly tracted from in- only. for his lifetime Under International represented come his half of the Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Pension pension payments previously Ray- awarded to Fund, 14, 1968, September Benefit from property. mond as marital Elaine's half— 7, 1993, through June accumulated $795.64 also never included in the dis- —was per $42 benefit of month. Under Raymond’s gross trict court's calculation of Plan, payable the IBEW no benefits were monthly income. As the district court stated Elaine until retired. subtraction, performing after the court only portion in income "include[d] 3. The court of took a view different pension benefits which accrued from the non- According factual record. to the court appeals, [Raymond's] pension marital $795.64 amount subtracted Raymond's gross monthly "rep- plans.” income (2008). § 518A.29 Minnesota Statutes to be monthly expenses Elaine’s mated4 $2,100. (2008), turn, “gross income to be states $1,950, Raymond’s balancing disability pay- ... “[a] concluded includes court re- shortages would surpluses and parties’ ments.” pay- sult in a reduced § 518.552 out- Minnesota Statutes month.” per ment of $700 courts the conditions and factors lines Raymond to ob- also ordered The court mainte- awarding consider before must naming Elaine policy tain a life insurance subdivision nance. Section beneficiary in the amount as the states that: $75,000. court made its order The district a maintenance may grant [T]he 1, 2006, and denied May retroactive if it spouse for either finds order attorney fees. requests parties’ both seeking maintenance: spouse court’s Raymond appealed (a) including property, lacks sufficient reversed, order, the court of property apportioned monthly maintenance reducing for reasonable needs spouse, provide Lee, Lee v. 749 N.W.2d to zero. obligation considering the standard spouse of 51, ap- The court of (Minn.App.2008). during the mar- living established re- court’s order vacated the district peals to, insurance, a but not limited riage, especially, on procure to quiring education, longer training no had or or period grounds at Id. obligation to secure. (b) provide adequate to self- is unable changed also court of 60-61. The considering the standard support, after court’s of the district the effective date during the living established 2005, 2006, 1, July May to order from circumstances, through and all relevant cross-appeal, affirmed on Elaine’s custo- employment, or is the appropriate need-based attor- court’s denial of district cir- condition or of a child whose dian Elaine’s granted at 61. We ney fees. Id. that the appropriate make it cumstances for review. petition em- required to seek custodian not be outside the home. ployment I. amount and calculating appropriate “an by statute as is defined

Maintenance maintenance, pro- the statute duration legal sepa- or in a dissolution award made shall maintenance order vides that “[t]he from the proceeding ration time, periods of in amounts and for be spouse earnings or of one future income as the permanent, or temporary either and maintenance support for the regard to mari- just, without court deems § subd. 3a Minn.Stat. other.” "[njeither support but not maintenance. par- tion of child found that 4. The district court Lee, Although changes in at 58-59. evidence of 749 N.W.2d ty reliable See submitted expenses support needs.” The dis- respective governs or child chapter their 518A much of 518A.26, (2008) to base its matters, nevertheless decided trict court subd. 1 Minn.Stat. "alleged changes” in income and findings on purposes of expressly "[f]or states disputes party expenses. appeal, neither On de- chapter the terms chapter and this respect findings with to court's meanings have the this section shall fined in monthly expenses. parties' We conclude to them.” respectively ascribed 518A.29’s legislature intended section that the concluded 5. The court of chapter apply gross to income definition of "gross contained in income” definition of governs which maintenance. applies the calcula- 518A.29 misconduct, all considering tal and after maker or in furtherance of the other party’s employment or relevant factors.” Minn.Stat. business. eight subd. 2. The lists non-exclu- statute Id.

sive factors for courts to consider when Minnesota Statutes subd. 1 crafting maintenance orders: (2008), provides that “the court

(a) par- time, the financial resources of the time to on motion of either of the maintenance, ty seeking including mari- modify ... respecting order tal apportioned party, the amount of maintenance.” Subdivision 2(a) provides that party’s ability and the to meet needs terms of an order “[t]he respecting support may maintenance or independently, including the extent be upon showing modified of one or more provision support which a of a child following, any of which makes the living party with the includes a sum for terms unreasonable and unfair: sub- custodian; party stantially increased or in- gross decreased (b) necessary the time acquire suf- come of obligor obligee; or substan- training ficient education or to enable tially increased or decreased need of an party seeking maintenance to find obligor oblige,” plus or other factors not appropriate employment, proba- and the 2(d). Id., relevant in this case. skills, bility, given the party’s age and Moreover, a motion for modifica- “[o]n completing education or training and be- tion of including a motion for coming fully partially self-supporting; the extension of the duration of a mainte- (c) living the standard of established award, nance the court shall apply, addi- marriage; factors, tion to all other relevant the fac- (d) and, the duration of the tors for award of maintenance under homemaker, in the case of a length section 518.552that exist at the time of the employment absence from and the 2(d). § motion.” Minn.Stat. subd. education, skills, extent to which or Id., 2(d). subd. experience have become outmoded and legislature specifically The also provided earning capacity permanent- has become regard direction with to the division of ly diminished; marital property. Minnesota Statutes (e) earnings, the loss of seniority, re- 518.58, (2008), § subd. 1 directs the courts benefits, tirement employment and other just to “make a equitable and division of opportunities forgone by spouse property the marital parties” based seeking maintenance; spousal on a number of factors set forth (f) age, physical and the and emo- statute. That same statute directs the spouse tional condition of the seeking court to value the marital pur- assets for maintenance; poses of parties division between the as of (g) ability spouse of the specific a initially date: the date of the whom sought maintenance is to meet prehearing scheduled settlement confer- ence, needs meeting spouse while those of the agreed by a different date upon maintenance; seeking parties, and or a if third date the court makes specific findings that another date of valu- (h) the contribution party of each equitable. ation is fair and Id. acquisition, preservation, deprecia- tion, appreciation or in the amount or 518.58, 2, Minnesota Statutes subd. value of the marital property, as well as addresses of nonmarital property. awards the contribution of a spouse as a home- If spouse’s the district court finds that a

637 claims, reject “including the We both and hold that the property, or resources property,” of the marital court err in spouse’s portion calculating did not an unfair inadequate as to “work are so income. may apportion up

hardship,” court eases, In dissolution prevent nonmarital one-half of regarding has broad discretion not hardship. Elaine does claim the unfair property, division of in this case. applies that this statute support. and child Bollenbach v. Bollen 4, subd. Minnesota Statutes bach, 427, 148, Minn. 285 175 N.W.2d That pension plans. statute addresses (1970). 154 The district court’s award of provides that the district court divide maintenance or division will plan property pension as marital benefits only be reversed on if the court appeal pension future rights plan or the form of Hertz, abused 304 its discretion. Hertz v. 4(a). Id. payments. (1975). 144, 146, Minn. specifically by limits the division statute However, statutory is a ques construction only making any “payable award law, tion of we novo. which review de pension plan the amount of the extent of Inc., County Trade Ctr. Brookfield the terms of the payable benefit under (Minn.1998). Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d plan”, prohibits lump an award a Raymond’s monthly pen- pen- analyzing sum amount from a defined benefit plan. payments, sion Id. sion the court of divid- (1) categories: ed the into three Finally, Minnesota Statutes 518.582 pension by Raymond earned be- benefits (2008) valuing prescribes procedure (pre-marital fore the married bene- parties rights. benefits or Subdivision fits), Ray- earned benefits of the statute authorizes the district court mond after dissolved their qualified experienced appoint person benefits), marriage (post-marital pension plan in the valuation of benefits or by Raymond earned dur- expert to function as an witness to rights ing period parties’ marriage rights, pension plan value (marital benefits). The court of 4 of provides subdivision that statute pension further benefits into two divided valuing pension parties may, lieu of previously subcategories: benefits through ap- use of a court benefits property, and benefits not awarded as pointed actuary, “stipulate present [to] Lee, 749 property. awarded as See rights or that are pension value of benefits appeals The of N.W.2d at 56-59. court property.” marital analyzed category separately, asking each Both take issue with court’s whether court includ- properly the district Raymond’s monthly of calculation income. (or excluded) pension category ed each of argues that the district court calculation payments in the district court’s payments pension have all should excluded Raymond’s of income. See id. income, from its calculation of his because they either consist of non-marital A. Pre-Marital Pension Benefits property previously or marital awarded only subtracting from his income to him. Elaine that the district argues Raymond’s portion Raymond’s monthly pension by excluding erred court Raymond’s payments from benefits earned monthly income derived during marriage previously awarded monthly pension previously payment property, to him marital property. as marital awarded implicitly pre- ty properly held are considered “income” at the time the benefits are received. pension marital benefits could be included the court’s calculation of his § Minnesota Statutes subd. income.6 governing section the modification of awards, existing maintenance states that appeals The court of took a different “an respecting order maintenance or sup- view, holding pension benefits earned port may upon be modified a showing of prior parties’ marriage could not be ... substantially increased or decreased calculating Raymond’s included when gross obligor.” income an (Emphasis Lee, monthly income aas matter of law. added.) income,” turn, “Gross “includes at 58. The court of ... pension and disability payments,” present concluded that payments pen- (2008), § Minn.Stat. 518A.29 without sion acquired by Raymond before restriction as to when pension marriage are not “future income or earn- were earned. legislature’s use of the ings” within meaning of Minn.Stat. “payments” term in section 518A.29 is of 518.003, 3a, subd. reasoning that charac- particular significance, indicating a legisla- terizing pre-marital benefits as future in- tive pension intent to consider benefits as “ignore[s] payment come the fact that income when the obligor actually receives pension really benefits is a distribution of pension disbursement of funds. In con- trast, comprising employer investment governing contri- the statute the division of “[mjarital performed butions for work states during a cer- property” public includes “vested period, pri- tain employee contributions for pension plan vate rights, benefits or ac- period, same and appreciation on that quired parties.” Lee, investment.” 749 N.W.2d at 58. 518.003, (2008). subd. 3b rights Pension disagree. We “Future income or earn- are also as “rights described in the form of ings,” as the court of acknowl- pension plan payments.” Minn. future edged, refers to a time frame. In this 4(a) Stat. (emphasis add- case, the word “future” potential limits the ed). provisions These demonstrate that sources for maintenance to income or legislature knew how distinguish earnings received after the has between vested rights -pension — (or, been precisely, dissolved more after benefits earned but yet not received—-and valuation, the date of see Minn.Stat. actual pension payments. (2008)). subd. 1 The crux of the The court of appeals also concluded that interpretive dispute is whether pre-marital current

benefits are considered “income or earn- benefits should be characterized as non- ings” at the time the benefits are earned marital property, rather than income. or at the time the benefits are received. A Lee, 749 at N.W.2d 58. Non-marital prop- review of applicable statutory provi- erty property is defined as acquired before sions Raymond’s convinces us that pension or after marriage relationship. Minn. previously (as benefits not proper- 518.003, § awarded as Stat. subd. Assuming 3b.7 however, 6. We cannot discern from the Raymond record before worked and earned pension precisely us portion Raymond’s approximately years what benefits for of Elaine, $2,467.78 marrying many years before monthly and for pension payment was following the dissolution. by Raymond prior earned par- to or after the marriage, party presented ties' as neither evi- 7. The Academy amicus American of Matrimo- points. dence undisputed, on these It is Lawyers nial asserts that “there nois distinc- here) deciding that as “future income” within the mean- without them do parties both 518.003, § of Minn.Stat. subd. 3a. ing marriage before pension benefits earned fact alone property, this non-marital are Previously B. Marital Pension Benefits pre- conclusion not foreclose does as Property Awarded may also pension payments benefit marital Raymond’s calculating When as income available be future characterized income, court sub the district of language The plain for maintenance. Raymond’s pension tracted of authorizes to consider statute courts ($795.64) previously income awarded to when payments as income8 pension benefit property,9 him as marital and the of awards; this con- calculating maintenance affirmed court’s deci rule, subject only is sideration Lee, at Elaine ar sion. parties, agreed by both gues that district court’s exclusion award- previously that have been benefits previously Raymond’s income con- also be property ed marital cannot as him property awarded to as marital was income. sidered disagree. error. We case, with agree to this we applied As pro- Minnesota Statutes in- properly that the district court authorizing vision the modification a payments cluded derived order, cautions courts that in its calcula- pre-marital pension benefits of real personal “all divisions and Raymond’s monthly income. tion of final, by be provided section 518.58 shall by the at issue covered were only and be revoked or modified income,” and statutory “gross definition of con- the court finds the existence where judgment after the by justify reopening well a were received ditions state, including laws of mo- their under the this marriage, qualifying dissolved us, plain language and the pre-marital claims record before between retirement tion statutes, pension earned and that before post-marital retirement claims previously marriage and not awarded as mar- have not to the extent retirement benefits property are when re- property they appropri- considered income awarded as are ital been purposes of ately as ceived. considered income amicus also ob- spousal maintenance." The serves, believe, correctly pre- 518.003, (" we that both subd. 3b 'Mari- 9. See Minn.Stat. not, post-marital property person- "[are] property, or property’ means real tal definition, part al, See estate.” including private pension the marital public vested or 518.003, (defining 3b mar- rights, acquired by parties, Minn.Stat. subd. plan them, dissolution, property) sepa- legal ital or either of property). ration, (authorizing division any of marital proceeding at time or annulment not, except in the most un- marriage is during Such existence relation circumstances, prop- them, part ever usual of which or at time between erty living together award. parties were husband purported rela- and wife under an annulment attempted tionship which is annulled in 8. We note that never prior but the date of valuation quantify proceeding, much of courts to how the lower (empha- 1.” subdivision payment might considered under section be each Here, added)). stipulated income, parties in the might considered sis and how much be Ray- judgment that original and decree principal representing the the a return of to be after) (or rights pension accumulated acquired mond's property that he before equally be- would "allocated marriage. say a different the be We cannot whether property parties” part the a record. tween the would obtain on a different result today the that based on division. What we decide is 640 518.145, parties subdivision 2.” fits earned after the

tions under section dissolved their 2(f). 518A.39, reversed, In marriage. § subd. other The court appeals Minn.Stat. mistake, fraud, words, newly holding Raymond’s dis- post-marital pen- absent that evidence, extraordinary covered or other sion do qualify not as “future in- benefits circumstances, 518.145, § see Minn.Stat. come” until has received full the (2008), upset 2 not subd. courts the value of marital property his award and Lee, made at property pre-marital division of marital disso- 749 benefits. N.W.2d at modifying in course a appeals lution mainte- 57. The court concluded that nance party provided any order. neither “[w]hile evi- dence pension to establish the value calculating Raymond’s monthly When origi- benefits awarded at the time of the income, considering Raymond’s marital decree, nal it is clear the foresee- pension previously benefits awarded to future, [Raymond’s] monthly able him as would property necessarily not di- equal will not that full value.” property; vest of his marital he Id. might have sufficient other income from which pay to maintenance award. But appeals The court of rested its conclu- including previ- prior sion on two court of deci- ously in property Raymond’s awarded as sions, both of which warrant brief exami- potentially income would increase the total Kruschel, nation here. Kruschel v. Raymond’s amount of maintenance obli- husband-obligor was sole awarded owner- gation. is akin to putting money This into ship pension plan of his when the Raymond’s pocket left while simultaneous- marriage. dissolved their 419 N.W.2d ly removing money right pocket, from his (Minn.App.1988). 120 The district court modifying effect prior property divi- also awarded to the wife-obli- sion finding without the existence of the dissolution, gee. years Id. Five after 518.145, factors set forth Minn.Stat. obligor petitioned retired and the court to subd. 2.10 obligation. lower his maintenance Id. at

Here, calculating when argued 120-21. continuing pay He income, we conclude the dis- to disgorge maintenance would force him trict court properly declined consider benefits, of his which were previously income awarded to previously him proper- awarded as marital him property. as marital ty. 121. Id. at The court of agreed, citing Minn.Stat. subd. 2

C. Post-Marital Pension Benefits (current version at Minn.Stat. 2(f)) In calculating Raymond’s monthly (stating subd. that “all di- income, the court por personal property district included the visions of pro- real final”). tion of Raymond’s monthly pension bene- vided section 518.58 be shall challenge generated not did decision of looked at the income from that the lower included her income property, required obligee spouse not her pension payments, share even principal to invade pay though they were her awarded to as marital Nardini, living expenses. See Nardini v. property. respect party seeking With to the (Minn. 1987); N.W.2d Broms v. maintenance, courts are instructed consid- Broms, (Minn.1984). property apportioned par- er “marital regarding Because Elaine raised no issue ty.” 2(a). How- pension payments inclusion of in her in ever, considering when awarded come, we need not the issue discuss further. spouse seeking to a we have

641 appeals pension nance when the same benefits at 121. The court of 419 N.W.2d case, obligor the dis- the as previously the and instructed were awarded to remanded may not be property. no-apportion- that “maintenance marital But the trict court paid obligor]’s by adopted appeals [the to be rule court of ordered ment the Kruschel, received case, until he has payments applied goes in as in pension this equivalent an to pension amount protect from the what is to beyond required far original in as determined the its value in property interest award. Id. at property $2,467.78 distribution.” Raymond each Of the receives payments, only in pension month $795.64 Similarly, Marriage in In Rich- re property previously marital represents awarded, ards, as was husband-obligor the long Raymond to him. As as awarded of his entire value property, marital the keeps monthly pen- in receives $795.64 472 marriage. pension earned he what payments, exactly receives sion After (Minn.App.1991). 163 N.W.2d award him to re- property the entitles marriage, the dissolved their more, no ceive—no less. in- obligor’s benefits pension value of change obligor’s to a in the creased due Any allocating entirety rule of his Id. The obli- employer’s package. monthly pension payment as payments argued any pension that gee artificially; does property marital so of the obligor in excess received $2,467.78 payment Raymond re- pension obligor property awarded to the as amount represents month the cumula- ceives each income,” and were “future at divorce by Raymond earned for work tive benefit pay- available for maintenance therefore before, throughout performed his career — appeals at 165. The court of ments. Id. after his to Elaine. during, and but, relying on obligee with agreed Therefore, disagree we with the court Kruschel, that at held N.W.2d receives that the amount $50,556 obligor was entitled because property month in of his each excess original de- benefits under proper- must be considered marital award cree, receives this obligor] [the “until of his until he receives the full value ty amount, claim a obligee] may not [the Rather, award. property pension income in ex- of increased share in- exceeding represents amount $795.64 Richards, original cess of the award.” part is not of the come words, the court at 165. other We hold a district award. adopted no-apportionment obligor’s of an include in its calculation rule, obligor’s pen- that all holding ability pay maintenance the part must payments sion be considered monthly pension payment ex- obligor’s an until the sum obligor’s property award obligor amount is entitled ceeding the award. the total exceeds property. month marital to receive each as Olski, 237, 540 case, parties agree with the Accord Olski Wis.2d In this (holding post- that Minneso- N.W.2d rule articulated Kruschel an 2(f), represented prohibits ta Statutes for mainte- pay- income stream available using pension courts from district nance).11 in- properly mainte- The district court for ments as income source Oldham, Divorce, possible mainte- Sepa- after divorce available also J. 11. See Thomas rights not have Property § such would 7.10 nance because ration and Division of division); (stating it included initial do not consider been courts Turner, Equitable Distribution rights R. improper include earned Brett 642 Raymond’s

eluded in its calculation of circumstances living standards of the monthly income the difference between at the time of the divorce.” Botkin Botkin, Raymond’s monthly 29, pension payment 172, total 247 Minn. 77 N.W.2d (1956); and the monthly Arundel, 175 see also Arundel v. pension payment previously (Minn.1979); awarded to 281 N.W.2d 666-67 But here, him as marital property. the district court found that Elaine $1,950 required monthly to cover her rea- II. $1,674.14 sonable needs and received decision, In light of our some fur monthly in income from all sources before necessary ther comment is on issues not she any By received maintenance. award- by reached appeals. the court of In the ing per month, $700 appeals, Raymond challenged court of the district court appears to have awarded district court’s action in setting Elaine’s Elaine more than reasonably she needed monthly per maintenance award at remand, $700 to support herself. On the dis- month. To per arrive at the month $700 trict court should reexamine the mainte- figure, the district court conducted a “bal mind, nance award with principles these ancing parties’ surpluses and short appropriate and make findings to support ages.” The court appeals questioned the current maintenance award or a differ- by court, this action which ent award should the circumstances have roughly awarded Elaine per more $424 changed.

month than her expenses: “We The district court also ordered comment on the district court’s actions Raymond to obtain a policy life insurance only to that equalization note par naming Elaine as the beneficiary in the adjustment ties’ incomes of mainte $75,000, amount of in order to secure the authority nance is without precedent.” maintenance obligation that the court im Lee, 749 N.W.2d at 60 n. 2. The court of posed. The court appeals vacated the not required was to take fur insurance award on the grounds narrow view, steps, ther regardless because its that lacked sufficient income to needs, Elaine’s ability had no pay and therefore had no make maintenance under the obligation to secure with life insurance. court of appeals’ analysis of his income. Lee, note, 749 at N.W.2d 60-61. We how concept of “reasonable needs” is a ever, Raymond argued before the one, malleable vary and will from case to court of the district court depending case the unique on characteris- by failing erred findings make of fact tics of party seeking maintenance and respect with insurability and the living standard of during established cost of life insurance. The court of ap the marriage. We have repeatedly stated peals apparently agreed, again but con support to which a party divorced cluded no action necessary light was is simply entitled “is not that which will its decision on maintenance. Id. supply her with the bare necessities of Arundel, life.” Arundel v. Insurability and cost of insurance seem (Minn.1979). Rather, obligee to us to be significant facts in determining expect can “[keep] sum that will with the both propriety of an require- insurance 343-44, (2d 1994) Property (stating ty, ed. while those earned after the divorce should retirement separate earned be classified as available for maintenance). should be proper- treated as marital findings its an support of the cost of insur- factual to choice of impact and the ment date. re expenses. Marriage effective See In Raymond’s monthly ance on of (Minn.1989). Schmidt, 99, factual 436 105 should make N.W.2d The district court on as on remand. findings these issues well Finally, agree ap- we with the court of that an award of is peals attorney fees III. to of committed the discretion the district is Finally, address two other we court, and that there was abuse of no by raised Elaine this court. sues before Gully Gully, here. 599 discretion See appeals’ court de challenges Elaine the of (Minn.1999). change to the effective retroactive cision in part, Affirmed reversed in part, May date of the court’s order district remanded. 1, 2006, the July day Raymond to Lee, 749 N.W.2d at 60. served motion. DIETZEN, (concurring). Justice held the The court that because majority’s I concur with the decision give explanation court did not an district case, disagree portions this but with of its 1, 2006, May the order for its choice of underlying analysis. Specifically, I dis- the have made retroactive to should been analysis agree majority’s regard- with the day Raymond his motion on Elaine. served availability Raymond’s the ing pre-mari- Id. to spousal tal calculate argues the court Elaine that district Additionally, question I how maintenance. a for provide did not need to factual basis by majority, rule the which the announced did, the it choosing retroactive date that post-dissolution pension payments makes (2) if the court to required district was spousal as a for mainte- available source provide factual basis its retroactive judg- allocated in except nance those date, have should decree, apply ment and would to distribu- court to remanded the case district plans. tions from defined contribution of a provide explanation for its choice prevail modify spousal To on a motion to date. petitioner must show 518A.39, subd. Minnesota Statutes changed circumstances make 2(e), sup- states that modification of “[a] order unfair and un- original terms may ... made port or maintenance be 518A.39, subd. reasonable. Minn.Stat. only respect any period to retroactive with 2(d) (2008). of section subdivision petitioning party which the has specifically in- legislature only for modification but pending motion structs the district court consider from the service of notice of date of initial factors relevant to an award “May” responding party.” motion on the § 518.552 maintenance under Minn.Stat. permissive. is modify whether determine (2008). with that the agree We maintenance or not. spousal date is committed to choice retroactive court, long majority district The concludes the discretion of the but re- statutory marriage is within benefits earned before as the date chosen However, judgment be after the and decree limits. that discretion must ceived constitute as found the form exercised based on facts Here, income,” no are avail- there were “future and therefore court. spousal maintenance under Minn. support factual the date chosen. able for findings (2008). remand, make subd. 3a Under On the district court shall Stat. statute, pre- agreements enforceable majority’s reading of the enter into expand may designation limit or the income from which marital benefits avoid income,” provided paid. “future such benefits be Simi- judgment larly, antenuptial agreements allocated decree. are often are however, majority implies, by parties used before to resolve may authority disputes lack to future potential the over the charac- district property and that non- pre-marital property, allocate the terization of as marital or to over property disputes of such benefits in the marital and resolve future allocation only antenuptial spousal award occurs the most unusual maintenance. Valid agreements are also See circumstances. enforceable. (in- 518.003, MinmStat. subd. 3b disagree majority with the that such I in the definition of cluding nonmarital or en- agreements are either unusual not personal real or “ex- property Rather, parties. forceable between the contract”). by a valid antenuptial cluded agreements to resolve divisions spousal maintenance are common and Second, majority’s the broad character- and are place, provided enforceable the ization of all benefits earned be- agreements part judgment are of the and marriage paid but fore after dissolution as See, by e.g., entered the decree court. income” under “future (allowing subd. the MinmStat. 5 3a, ambiguity creates on parties stipulate to limits modifica- exists in where none the statute. Retire- among of oth- provided, tions maintenance plans may be gener- ment divided into two things, stipulation part er that the is made categories: al defined contribution de- and decree). judgment the In of and such hand, fined benefit. On the one a defined cases, pension parties benefits that plan provides contribution an ac- individual agreed have are not available as source employee count with participant, for each spousal not be con- should retirement benefits based on the amount sidered, even if such are received income, to the account contributed and after the has been dissolved. expenses, or gains, losses to the account. 414(i) view, (2000). my In legislature given has A I.R.C. 401k retirement parties rights limiting plan example broad is an of a defined contribu- availability of pension employer for the cal- in which plan employee tion and of spousal par- culation maintenance. opportunity have contribute ticular, subdivision 5 of 518.552 ex- an section amounts into individual account for the pressly parties allows through stipulation employee. benefit of the The amounts preclude or limit the modification contributed the account are invested account, provided stipulation that the plan balance of the part is made of the and decree. judgment consisting contributions and income contributions, explicit recognition by Subdivision 5 is an earned on those is available legislature agreements that private employee upon to the La retirement. See preclude Assoc., Inc., DeWolff, Boberg or limit the modification Rue v. & 552 enforceable, 1020, spousal pro- maintenance are 128 U.S. S.Ct. 1022 n. they vided are part judgment (noting made L.Ed.2d partici that the and decree. enter pant Since into in a contribution defined or “individu agreements preclude enforceable plan promised al account” is “the value retirement, limit the modification of mainte- account at individual which nance, they may it is largely axiomatic that also is a function of the con- amounts the invest- are not known at to that account and tions—amounts tributed contributions”). judgment of those performance ment time of the and decree—the divi- of a sion of the defined hand, benefit On the other a defined plan requires contribution the division of with plan qualified employees provides itself, plan balance not the division of benefits, the amount monthly retirement plan. However, future from the plan according calculated which is from plan upon distributions retire- as a paid plan assets which are not only ment include distributions v. Jacob- Hughes Co. whole. See Aircraft dissolution, balance at time of but plan son, 432, 439, 440, 119 S.Ct. 525 U.S. made also distributions contributions af- (1999) (noting that a de- L.Ed.2d 881 plan in the ter dissolution increases general of a plan fined benefit “consists after to in- balance dissolution attributable dedi- pool assets rather than individual terest, dividends, in and net increases the has and “no member plan cated accounts” plan’s value of the investments. a that com- any particular claim to asset plan’s asset poses part general a of the majority’s ap- It is unclear from the pool”). Although employees may contrib- all post-dissolution whether with- proach fund, plan or other employer ute to the plans, from contribution if drawals defined much as is sponsor agrees to contribute as periodically, made would be considered required benefit. generate promised “future income” as a source for available (noting See at 119 S.Ct. 755 id. spousal may by em- pool be funded “[t]he asset 3a, allocation of regardless contributions, or a ployer employee or decree, in the judgment balance plan employ- of both” but that “the combination “payments” such are because distributions investment er bears entire typically meaning within of Minn.Stat. underfunding ... cover any risk and must (2008).1 clear, if Nor is it not 518A.29 may a occur as the result of shortfall that from de- post-dissolution all withdrawals investments”). Thus, a plan’s from the plans fined contribution would be consid- a plan accumulate defined benefit does not income,” majority “future how the ered employee, but principal amount distinguish between those are would periodic payment a “guarantees” rather are the increas- and those that not. Given upon See employee retirement. ing importance defined contribution Indus., Inc., Keystone Consol. Comm’r today’s ques- these are economy, plans 152, 154, 2006, 124 113 S.Ct. U.S. in this that I would answer case. tions (concluding that L.Ed.2d 71 employee, upon plan defined benefit “the view, my deposited defined funds retirement, periodic fixed is entitled to a or mar- plans before contribution payment”). party, by settle- and awarded to riage otherwise, and made agreement ment of a portion of the marital The division decree, are judgment and not part of the plan contribution does not—in- defined maintenance. spousal to calculate fu- available deed, cannot—involve the division generated on the amount But the income Because plan. from the payments ture in the and decree is judgment awarded payments a defined contribu- future maintenance. spousal to calculate depend tion on future contributions available plan Thus, draw a between contribu- I would distinction and future returns on those benefit, apparently acknowledge monthly payments are from a defined case I plan. by Raymond in this rather than a defined contribution after dissolution received party the funds awarded to a as property judgment decree and the in-

come earned on those funds after dissolu- differently, tion. Put peri- odic spouse made to the former after represents dissolution that the “re- property turn of’ the award should not be maintenance; spousal available for but “return on” property award should be

available for maintenance. I rec- ognize determining how much of a given periodic payment is “return of’ the property award versus “return on” the question, award is a fact complex be a determination. But the “re- turn on” award is “future

income,” within meaning of Minn.Stat. 3a, or “gross income” within meaning of Minn.Stat.

§ 518A.29. Tyler JONES, Appellant,

Andrew BORCHARDT, Respondent. Steven C.

No. A08-556. Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. Colbert, Legal

Bradford Assistance to Prisoners, Paul, MN, Minnesota St. for appellant.

Gregory Griffiths, Hilary J. R. Stone- lake, Dunlap P.A., Rochester, Seeger, & MN, respondent.

Case Details

Case Name: Lee v. Lee

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Dec 3, 2009

Citation: 775 N.W.2d 631

Docket Number: A07-110

Court Abbreviation: Minn.