Court Opinion

ID: 9670234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:17:11.811178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:03.245377
License: Public Domain

LANSING, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the holding that a contemporaneous maintenance obligation should not be subtracted from net income prior to the application of the child support guidelines. The guidelines permit the deduction of a “maintenance order that is currently being paid” in arriving at net income. Minn.Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(viii) (1986). The contemporaneously ordered maintenance amount was not “currently being paid” and should not have been deducted.
Assuming the proper application of the child support guidelines, the court’s provision of $500 per month maintenance is not an abuse of discretion. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion that three years is a sufficient period of time for Karen Biondi to become self-supporting. Had the court not allocated the home improvement debt exclusively to Biondi, she may have been able to obtain her college degree and become self-supporting at a reasonable income level without forfeiting adequate housing for herself and her daughter. Because the property division and debt allocation forced Biondi to quit school and obtain employment, her earning capacity is substantially diminished.
An award of rehabilititative maintenance should permit a reasonable budget. Although that may require a disporportionate financial burden on the obligor spouse, it is temporary and that is the rationale. Bion-di’s three-year maintenance provision is apparently for rehabilitation, because it is temporary. However, in light of her obligations, it does not afford a reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation.
Although the majority states that $500 spousal maintenance per month is not an abuse of discretion, it nonetheless remands for computation of a reasonable “package” of support and maintenance, a concept which distorts the meaning of the statute.
Minn.Stat. § 518.552 does require consideration of any sum being received as custodian for a child, but that is only one factor which the trial court is required to consider. The court is also required to consider the limited financial resources of Karen Biondi, the amount of marital property which she received, her ability to meet her reasonable needs, the time it may take for her to acquire sufficient education to find appropriate employment, the standard of living during the marriage, the 18-year length of the marriage, the substantial time she has been absent from the workplace, her loss of earnings, her lack of retirement and seniority benefits, her age and physical condition, Bruce Driscoll’s ability to provide maintenance, Bruce Dris-coll’s reasonable needs, and the contribution of each party to any marital property. The statute also requires that a temporary award not be preferred over a permanent award where the factors justify a permanent award. That is the appropriate “package” which must be considered in determining spousal maintenance.
In addition, Biondi’s limited assets do not allow for payment of attorney’s fees. On the facts of this case, attorney’s fees should have been allowed.