Court Opinion

ID: 9657210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:17:30.779715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:42.195888
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Judge,
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court on all issues. I agree with the majority that the trial court improperly considered the $200 respondent contributed toward his adult children’s education as a reduction of resources available from which to pay maintenance. However, even with that $200 added back into respondent’s disposable income, I find the award of $100 a month maintenance for a person making approximately $1000 a month easily within the discretion accorded a trial court on maintenance issues.
The majority holds that the trial court failed to consider the criteria of Minn.Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2 (Supp.1985) in determining the amount of maintenance. The statute requires consideration of these factors. Although the findings here are sparse, based on the total record it is evident that the court considered, as best it could from the evidence presented, the relevant statutory factors. Evidence showed that appellant recently completed an educational program in child development and was employed in that field part time. The vocational counsellor testified that appellant’s employability will improve once she has established a work history. Evidence showed appellant’s combined income from employment and maintenance, approximately $450 per month, is sufficient to meet her monthly expenses.
It is axiomatic that the trial court is accorded broad discretion with respect to the award of maintenance. Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 175 N.W.2d 148 (1970). This court must affirm the trial court’s decision if the decision has an acceptable basis in fact and in principle. Id. at 426-27, 175 N.W.2d at 154.
On the issue of temporary versus maintenance, the majority holds that, as a matter of law, this record requires reversal of the grant of “temporary” maintenance and implementation of a grant of permanent maintenance. The majority finds “uncertainty.” Then the majority states that “one cannot say with assurance that a permanent award is unnecessary.” The majority cites no case law or statute as authority for that statement, and there is none.
The statute states,
[wjhere there is some uncertainty as to the necessity of a permanent award, the court shall order a permanent award * *.
Here, the trial judge was not uncertain. He was clear that a temporary award was appropriate under the circumstances and facts presented in evidence. The vocational counsellor testified that, once appellant established a work history, her employability would be improved. The court awarded temporary maintenance to help her reach that point. This is not an abuse of discretion.
Given our standard of review, and the broad discretion given a trial court in awarding maintenance, I find no error.