If a pension is awarded as property, it cannot be used to support a maintenance obligation. Property is not income and to base a maintenance obligation on an obligor's property award would be an inappropriate post-judgment redistribution of property as income. Here, appellant was awarded his pension as property. The district court erred in finding that there was no substantial change in appellant's circumstances. Absent unreasonableness and unfairness of an existing maintenance award, changed circumstances are inadequate to modify maintenance.
Unpublished opinions are of limited value in deciding an appeal.
Further, the unpublished opinions respondent cites are distinguishable. The crux of her argument is that appellant should use his pension to meet his own monthly expenses and pay her from his social security receipts. Maintenance obligors, however, are not required to liquidate their property to meet expenses. Absent a reason for distinguishing an award of property that happens to be a pension from an award of property that is not a pension, we must apply the general rule here. Thus, appellant's expenses exceed his income, a circumstance that renders the original maintenance obligation unreasonable and unfair.