The district court denied the motion, noting wife's doctor stated wife's medical condition was not generally considered a disabling condition, that wife offered no proof husband's representation of his income was made with an intent to defraud, and husband had submitted affidavits generally explaining that the discrepancy in his income was unanticipated when the parties entered the stipulation. Wife appealed, this court ruled husband's income was substantially greater than the stipulated amount, and remanded for findings on whether wife's maintenance award was unreasonable and unfair in light of husband's actual income and wife's medical condition. Storbeck v. Storbeck, No. On remand, the district court again denied wife's motion, again finding husband did not intentionally misrepresent his income. Storbeck v. Storbeck, No.
Wife appeals a third time.
Whether to modify maintenance is discretionary with the district court. Generally, maintenance modification requires the moving party to show a substantial change in circumstances rendering the existing award unreasonable and unfair. Maintenance-related findings of fact are not set aside unless clearly erroneous. The parties cite unpublished opinions to support various arguments. Unpublished opinions are of limited value in deciding an appeal.