The issue of spousal maintenance (also referred to as “alimony” or “spousal support”) is often the most difficult issue to resolve in divorce cases. Why? There are several reasons, but in my opinion, one of the biggest reasons is that historically there has not been much guidance provided in the statute. Unlike the laws applicable to child support, the Minnesota statutes do not provide spousal maintenance “guidelines” that direct us to apply basic fact patterns (e.g., incomes of the spouses) and then calculate dollar figures to be paid from one party to the other. When there isn’t a lot of statutory guidance, you tend to see a wide range of differing opinions among judges. Suffice it to say that our spousal maintenance statute has needed an overhaul for a long time.
This is not to suggest that our statute has not provided any guidance at all. Indeed, there are several factors for the courts to consider when analyzing claims for spousal maintenance, including the parties’ ages, health, education, past employment/training, the length of the marriage, whether they have children, the ability to prepare for retirement, and the overall standard of living established during the marriage. For the most part, these elements all remain as equally important factors to be considered.
So, what has changed? While I won’t explore every change made to the law in 2024, it is clear that we now have quite a bit more guidance available than we had previously.
Terminology
Previously, spousal maintenance, if ordered at all, was labeled either as “temporary maintenance” or “permanent maintenance.” Temporary maintenance was for a fixed/limited time period, while permanent maintenance had no scheduled end date. It is not surprising that many former spouses who were ordered to pay permanent maintenance were extremely concerned about the concept of their maintenance obligation being “permanent” as it was often misperceived as being an obligation that would last until they died. But that was never the intended meaning. Rather, a “permanent maintenance” obligation was simply intended to mean that the obligation would not have a predetermined end date, and the court would retain its jurisdiction (authority) to modify or terminate the obligation at a later date. The future is always unknown, and there are many things that could cause a permanent maintenance obligation to either change or to end altogether. Still, it was quite unsettling to many former spouses who found themselves subject to a financial obligation that was preceded by the word “permanent.”
The terms “temporary maintenance” and “permanent maintenance” have now been replaced with the terms “transitional maintenance” and “indefinite maintenance.” Will this simple change in terminology provide former spouses with a better understanding and higher comfort level? That remains to be seen, but as a family court attorney, it’s a change that I’ve hoped to see for a very long time.
Length of Obligation
We have more guidance in the statute now than we ever had previously. In addition to the factors that courts are directed to analyze when considering claims for spousal maintenance, there are now several rebuttable presumptions that apply to the duration of spousal maintenance based on the length of the parties’ marriage. In summary:
- For marriages less than five years, it is presumed that no maintenance should be ordered;
- For marriages more than five years and less than twenty years, if spousal maintenance is ordered, then it is presumed that the maintenance will be transitional, and it should be for no longer than one-half the length of the marriage. That is not to say that maintenance for marriages between five and twenty years must be ordered, or that if it is ordered, it must be for half of the length of the marriage. Rather, it just means that if the marriage is between five and twenty years, and if maintenance is ordered, it is presumed that it should be ordered for no longer than half the length of the marriage; and,
- For marriages longer than twenty years, if spousal maintenance is ordered, then it is presumed that the maintenance will be indefinite. Again, this does not mean that maintenance must be ordered in all divorces following marriages longer than twenty years, or that it cannot be transitional maintenance if the marriage was longer than twenty years. Rather, it just means that if maintenance is ordered after a marriage of over twenty years, it is presumed that it should be indefinite.
These changes alone should provide divorcing spouses, attorneys, and judges with far more guidance than we’ve ever had from the statute before. However, it is important to note that the recent changes to the maintenance statute do not include any further guidance regarding the actual amount of spousal maintenance to be ordered in situations where it is determined that maintenance will be ordered. Perhaps that would be taking things too far, and we are better off looking at each case as a unique situation that warrants a close analysis of all the statutory factors. In any event, even with these helpful changes, I expect that the issue of spousal maintenance will remain one that is widely and vigorously contested in divorce cases.
What Happens at Retirement
Another big change made to the maintenance statute provides us with guidance for reviewing spousal maintenance obligations when a party retires. It is now recognized that maintenance can be modified upon retirement, which means it can be reduced, suspended, reserved, or terminated altogether.
The statute now includes factors for the courts to consider when reviewing a request to modify maintenance in connection with a decision to retire, and includes a new presumption, which provides that when the retiring individual has attained either the age of eligibility for full Social Security retirement benefits, or the customary age for retirement in that person’s occupation, it is presumed that they will use both income and assets to meet their needs.
While we still won’t know exactly what will happen when those with spousal maintenance obligations reach retirement age and seek modification of their obligations, this addition to the statute specifically recognizes those situations, and provides at least some guidance where we previously had none.