Cisek v. Cisek, 409 N.W.2d 233 (Minn. Ct. App.

1987)

Judicial History The trial court denied Appellant ex-wife Carol Kies Ciseks motion for increased spousal maintenance and her motion to remove the termination date of her maintenance as well as a motion for attorneys fees of $7000. Facts Richard M. Cisek, Petitioner ex- husband and Carol Kies Cisek were divorced in 1972 after 25 years of marriage. In their divorce settlement, the Ciseks agreed that the ex-wife would receive spousal maintenance in the amount of $8700 per year until her 65th birthday or until she remarried. After the divorce and as his career progressed, the ex-husbands income was significantly increased. The ex-wife filed motions to have her maintenance increased and the termination date of support removed in accordance with the ex-husbands increased income and her own decreased income. Issue Did the trial court err by denying the ex-wifes motions for increase spousal maintenance? Did the trial court err by denying the ex-wifes motions for the removal of the termination date of the maintenance? Did the trial court err when denying the ex-wifes motion for $7000 for attorneys fees and instead awarding $750 in attorneys fees? Rule Savoren v. Savoren, 386 N.W.2d 288, 291 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) In order for the trial court to modify an award of maintenance, the moving party must show both a substantial change in earnings and unfairness of the existing obligation as a result of the change." Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 186 N.W.2d 678 (1971) A favorable change in an ex-spouse's income does not by itself constitute sufficient grounds to change stipulated financial arrangements incorporated in a divorce decree. Fitch v. Fitch, 298 Minn. 529, 530, 213 N.W.2d 925, 927 (1974) The decision not to modify maintenance is in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed except upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.

McClelland v. McClelland, 393 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) The trial court can still modify the maintenance provision of the decree within a year before termination of maintenance. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 376 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) In making its determination, the trial court must consider the financial resources of both parties. Analysis At the time of this case, Minnesota had a two-threshold requirement which must be met in order for a spousal maintenance agreement to be changed. In Savoren, the court found 1.) The appellant must show the original agreement was unfair and unreasonable and 2.) A favorable increase in an-ex-spouses income is not sufficient by itself to constitute a change in the maintenance order. The ex-wife was able to demonstrate there was a substantial increase in the ex-husbands pay: he went from earning $35,000 per year at the time of the decree to $140,000 fifteen years later when the case was filed. However, the ex-wife was not able to show the original agreement was unfair and unreasonable. Fitch v. Fitch, 298 Minn. 529, 530, 213 N.W.2d 925, 927 (1974) The original divorce settlement was negotiated between the Ciseks and their attorneys. The court contends the consideration given to agreement carries great weight since it was researched and discussed among both parties, and their competent legal counsel. The court also holds that a negotiated stipulation such as this indicates both parties have accounted for their present and future needs. Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 186 N.W.2d 678 (1971) As for the issue of removing the termination date of the spousal maintenance, the court found as it did in McClelland the issue was brought prematurely to the court. The court asserts that when the ex-husband is closer to retiring, he will then be in a better position to determine what his income will be and the order, if it is to be modified, would be more fairly modified at that time. Lastly, the court is required to consider the financial resources of both parties when determining attorneys fees. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 376 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). At the time the motion was filed, the ex-wife had $20,000 from selling the marital home. Holding The Court of Appeal of Minnesota finds that the trial court did not err when it denied the appellants motions for an increase in spousal maintenance and the removal of the termination of maintenance. It also finds the trial court did not err when it denied the appellants motion for $7000 in attorneys fees and awarded her $750 in attorneys fees.