Spousal Maintenance/ Alimony

ISSUE
Should Tim be paying Sarah permanent alimony?

RULE
Under Minn. Stat. 518.552 Subd 2, “The maintenance order shall be in amounts and for periods
of time, either temporary or permanent, as the court deems just, without regard to marital
misconduct, and after considering all relevant factors.”

ANALYSIS
The relevant factors to this case include the time needed to acquire and education or training to
procure new employment, the standard of living during the marriage, duration of marriage, and
length of nonemployment due to homemaker status. Sarah is 41 years of age, with good health,
and the utmost capability to endure education and procure suitable employment. The 3rd party
vocational evaluator should be able to prove Sarah’s aforementioned capabilities. Tim is willing
and offering to pay Sarah alimony on a temporary basis as provided in the statute while she
acquires a suitable level of self-sustainment.

RULE
“Now at 51 years of age, with certain health problems and without vocational skills or
independent resources, it is unreasonable to expect petitioner to be financially successful enough
in the labor market to support her needs. She is entitled to suitable support.” Arundel v. Arundel,
281 N.W.2d 663 (1979).

ANALYSIS
In the case of Arundel v. Arundel, the wife was awarded permanent alimony due to her
circumstances. Here, Sarah is ten years younger and has no health problems or other
circumstances that would prevent her from procuring suitable employment. “While it may be the
trend in the law to provide alimony only for so long as it is reasonably necessary for the once-
dependent spouse to attain self-sufficiency, certain exceptional cases warrant an award of
permanent alimony”. Id. Tim and Sarah do not have an exceptional case and Tim should be
supporting Sarah so long as necessary for her to become self-sufficient.

RULE
“The amount awarded should be adequate so far as the husbands means will permit, but it should
not be so large as to be oppressive.” Hempel v. Hempel, 225 Minn. 287 (1948).

ANALYSIS
Sarah should be awarded an amount that would continue her standard of living she has become
accustomed to while she procures new employment. The amount awarded should also not cause
Tim financial instability as he continues to live his standard of living while also supporting the
minor children.
CONCLUSION
Tim should pay temporary alimony to Sarah in an amount deemed just by the court so long as to
allow her to procure the proper education and/or training for suitable employment.

Marital Property

ISSUE
Should Time be awarded the marital property?

RULE
“The court shall base its findings on all relevant factors, including the length of the marriage, the
age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability,
estate, liabilities, and needs.” Miller v. Miller, 352 N.W.2d 738 (1984).

ANALYSIS
Tim is confident that the vocational evaluator will be able to prove Sarah’s abilities to procure
suitable employment given her age and good health. Sarah will also have a good start with the
accounts Tim has set up and funded for her, and the temporary alimony payments.

RULE
“A property division need not be mathematically equal as long as it is just and equitable.”
Grueneich v. Grueneich, Minn. App. LEXIS 1369, WL 31819052 (2002).

ANALYSIS
Tim has multiple accounts for Sarah with exceptional monies present, will pay Sarah temporary
alimony until she is able to supplement that income herself, and will be providing for the minor
children. Whether he will pay child support or have primary placement, the minor children will
always be provided for on Tim’s accord.

CONCLUSION
Tim should be awarded the marital property based on all financial support he has given and will
continue to give to Sarah.

Debts/Attorney Fees

ISSUE
Due to the parties having very little debt, the main issue is if Sarah should be awarded attorney
fees.

RULE
Under Minn. Stat. 518.14 Subd 1, “The court shall award attorney fees, costs, and disbursements
in an amount necessary to enable a party to carry on or contest the proceeding, provided it finds:
(1) that the fees are necessary for the good faith assertion of the party’s rights in the proceeding
and will not contribute unnecessarily to the length and expense of the proceeding; (2) that the
party from whom fees, costs, and disbursements are sought has the means to pay them; and (3)
that the party to whom the fees, costs, and disbursements are awarded does not have the means to
pay them.”

ANALYSIS
The attorney fees acquired by Tim and Sarah are in total $10,000 which was put on a credit card
of theirs. Each party would then be responsible for $5,000 provided the costs are split equally.
Tim has provided Sarah with a savings account holding $65,000 thus, her ability to pay her half
of attorney fees should be no question.

CONCLUSION
The parties should split the cost of the overall total put on the credit card for attorney fees as they
both have the means to pay them.