Court Opinion

ID: 9695889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:30:59.643683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:17.151948
License: Public Domain

HUSPENI, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority on the issues of the amount and duration of spousal maintenance, the amount of child support, and attorney fees. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s retention of any cohabitation clause language and from its affirmance of the child support termination date.
The cohabitation clause has been “interpreted” by the majority to permit respondent to seek a court order modifying or terminating maintenance if he has reason to believe that appellant has cohabited with an adult who is providing her basic needs. While this “interpretation” prevents an arbitrary cessation of maintenance payments and abrogates much of the force of the cohabitation provision, I submit that the inclusion of any reference to cohabitation is inappropriate in a court ordered decree.1 This court in Bateman v. Bateman, 382 N.W.2d 240, 251 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. April 24, 1986) recognized the inappropriateness of including a cohabitation provision. See also Sieber v. Sieber, 258 N.W.2d 754, 757 (Minn.1977) (“We are not persuaded that the existence of a meretricious relationship * * * standing alone is a sufficient ground to justify termination of * * * alimony”). The attempt here to tie the cessation of maintenance to its potential economic consequences does not, I submit, remedy the basic mischief of including a cohabitation clause in the first place. If, in fact, appellant does cohabitate in the future and if that cohabitation is perceived by respondent to be economically beneficial to appellant, Minn.Stat. § 518.64 is a fully utilizable vehicle through which respondent may bring a motion for reduction or termination of maintenance. The emasculated version of the cohabitation clause “interpreted” by the majority today is worse than worthless; it is subject to a misuse that can be needlessly economically and emotionally costly to both parties in the future.
In regard to child support, a decree provision terminating that support on December 31 of the year a child turns 18 is contrary to the definition of “child” in the Marriage Dissolution Act:
“Child” means an individual under 18 years of age, an individual under age 20 who is still attending secondary school, or an individual who, by reason of physical or mental condition, is incapable of self-support.
Minn.Stat. § 518.54, subd. 2 (1988). If the children continue to live with respondent from January 15 to July 15 of each year, arguably their support through the first half of the year following the year they turn 18 should be assured. However, the custody arrangement may be modified formally or informally by the parties. Even assuming the custody arrangement remains as it is at present, the $700 per month year-round support paid by respondent to appellant is set in consideration of the $1,400 per month expenses anticipated by appellant for the six months each year the children are actually with her. It is very possible that the minor children could incur expenses in excess of $700 per month while with appellant for which she would be responsible even after the children have left her physical custody. Again, the trial court’s arbitrary termination of support prior to the statutorily mandated termination event is inappropriate and potentially divisive.

. I recognize that at times parties stipulate to the inclusion of such a provision and that stipulation is incorporated into a decree. While such incorporation may not be inappropriate, it may create post-decree evidentiary and proof problems.