Williams Divorce and Family Law

Gerald O. Williams, Attorney

Recent Court Rulings

Minnesota Association for Justice Divorce and Family Law Columns

Summer 2007

Court of Appeals

Spousal Maintenance

In re the Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf

(Filed June 12, 2007)

Appellant Husband sought review of the spousal maintenance that the district court awarded to Respondent Wife. Appellant claimed that the maintenance award should not include budgeted amounts for savings and retirement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that it was appropriate to include savings and retirement in Respondent’s budget because doing so was consistent with the parties’ standard of living during the marriage.

Respondent sought review of the district court’s denial of life insurance to secure Appellant’s spousal maintenance obligation. The district court had denied the security because Respondent had not established that this was an “exceptional case.” The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ruling that Minnesota law no longer requires an "exceptional case" for spousal maintenance to be secured by life insurance.

Marital Property

In re the Marriage of Baker v. Baker

(Filed July 3, 2007)

Appellant Wife sought review of the characterization and allocation of Respondent Husband’s pension interest as marital and nonmarital property. The district court adopted the analysis of a financial expert who had determined how much of the increase in value of the pension asset was attributable to Respondent’s premarital balance, and characterized that part of the increase in value during the marriage as Respondent’s nonmarital property. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ruling that the parties’ employment of a financial planner to manage the pension account during the marriage constitutes active appreciation, requiring the court to consider the increase in value during the marriage to be marital property.

Appellant also sought review of the valuation of Respondent’s surgical practice, in which Respondent had signed a non-competition agreement. The district court adopted the analysis of a second financial expert regarding the business valuation, who had determined the value of the practice excluding goodwill, the goodwill value, and the part of the goodwill value that was “institutional goodwill,” i.e. goodwill that was not attributable personally to Respondent. The district court limited the marital value of the practice to exclude all goodwill. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ruling that the marital value of the practice should include the portion of value that is attributable to "institutional goodwill."

Appellant also sought review of the district court’s ruling that Respondent did not dissipate marital property by paying his attorney’s fees and by applying marital funds to expenses for other family members. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ruling that Respondent’s dissipation was both contrary to law and, in the case of the attorney’s fees, contrary to the court’s order that each party be responsible for his or her own attorney’s fees.

Spousal Maintenance / Attorney’s Fees

In re the Marriage of Moore v. Moore

(Filed July 10, 2007)

Appellant Husband sought review of the district court’s order regarding Respondent Wife’s spousal maintenance motion. The 2001 divorce decree required Appellant to pay spousal maintenance on the first and fifteenth day of each month until May 2005. On May 31, 2005, Respondent moved the court for relief regarding spousal maintenance.

The district court had denied Respondent’s request for an extension of spousal maintenance but did provide Respondent financial relief, pertaining to Appellant’s receipt of deferred salary, which was in the nature of spousal maintenance. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the court was without authority to provide maintenance relief after Appellant’s last scheduled maintenance payment on May 15, 2005.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed an award of need-based attorney’s fees to Respondent.