This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A15-2024
In re the Marriage of:
Stephanie Kay Nelson, petitioner,
Respondent,
vs.
Steven John Nelson,
Appellant.
Filed July 5, 2016
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-14-8367
Judith L. Oakes, Sarah E. Pollex, Rogness & Field, PA, Oakdale, Minnesota (for
respondent)
Jana Aune Deach, Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota
(for appellant)
Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and
Rodenberg, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant challenges a marriage-dissolution judgment, arguing that the district court
erred by determining that money respondent received under an employment separation
agreement was nonmarital property, failing to award appellant a disproportionately larger
share of the marital assets, and awarding insufficient spousal maintenance. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Steven John Nelson and respondent Stephanie Kay Nelson were married
on May 17, 2007, and are currently ages 54 and 49, respectively. The parties do not have
children together, but wife has two children from a prior relationship. The parties separated
following an altercation on Thanksgiving Day in 2014. Wife petitioned for dissolution of
the marriage, and the district court held a pretrial conference on February 4, 2015.
The parties submitted the disputed issues to the district court based on written
submissions, including factual stipulations. They stipulated that wife had a profit-sharing
plan through her employer, Metal-Matic, Inc. that had both a marital ($64,961.36) and a
nonmarital ($197,383) component. They also stipulated that wife agreed to leave Metal-
Matic pursuant to a Separation and Release Agreement (separation agreement) that would
pay her $144,540 over a 24-month period starting on April 30, 2015.
Husband argued that the money wife received under the separation agreement was
marital property and that he is entitled to one-half of the proceeds. In the alternative, he
asked the district court to award him monthly spousal maintenance of $1,667 for 24
months. He also sought a disproportionately larger share of the marital assets or a portion
of wife’s nonmarital assets on the ground that wife had more financial resources. Wife
asserted that the money she expected to receive under the separation agreement is not
marital property, that husband is not entitled to spousal maintenance, and that she should
2
be reimbursed for various costs she incurred related to the parties’ living expenses and the
sale of the homestead.
On October 20, 2015, the district court issued a judgment and decree dissolving the
marriage. The district court determined that the proceeds of wife’s separation agreement
are nonmarital property because the agreement was designed as a way for wife’s family,
the owners of Metal-Matic, to provide her with future financial support. The district court
awarded wife $34,192.18 of the marital portion of her profit-sharing account and husband
$30,769.18. The court awarded wife slightly more to compensate her “for her efforts at
preserving the marital estate” after the parties separated. And the district court awarded
husband temporary spousal maintenance in the amount of $1,300 for a period of four
months. Husband did not move for a new trial or amended findings. Husband appeals.
DECISION
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital property.
A. The district court did not err by determining that money wife received
under her separation agreement is nonmarital property.
Any property acquired by one or both spouses subsequent to the marriage and before
the valuation date of the case is presumed to be marital property. Minn. Stat. § 518.003,
subd. 3b (2014); Berenberg v. Berenberg, 474 N.W.2d 843, 846 (Minn. App. 1991), review
denied (Minn. Nov. 13, 1991). We review de novo whether property is marital or
nonmarital, but defer to the district court’s underlying findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous. Olsen v. Olsen, 562 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997). We use an
analytical, rather than mechanical, approach to determine whether property is marital or
3
nonmarital. Grigsby v. Grigsby, 648 N.W.2d 716, 721-22 (Minn. App. 2002), review
denied (Minn. Oct. 15, 2002).
Husband relies on Grigsby to support his argument that the proceeds of wife’s
separation agreement are marital property. This argument is unavailing. In Grigsby,
husband signed an employment-separation agreement after the valuation date. Id. at 719.
Husband received approximately $1,800,000 in exchange for signing the agreement, which
included a noncompete clause and waived all employment-related claims against his
employer. Id. Using the analytical approach, this court determined that the separation
payment was marital property because “[f]rom a general viewpoint, husband was in a
position to seek the benefits of the agreement only because of his employment status, which
commenced during the marriage.” Id. at 723. And we observed that the dominant feature
of the separation agreement was husband’s release of his employer from claims arising
during the course of his employment, which coincided with the marriage. Id.
In contrast, the district court found that wife’s separation agreement was designed
to enable her family to provide her future financial support, rather than obtain a release of
employment-related claims. Husband argues that this finding is clearly erroneous. We
disagree. While the separation agreement does contain release language, ample evidence
supports the district court’s finding. Wife’s family owns Metal-Matic. The affidavits of
both parties establish that wife’s family historically provided her with monetary support.
Husband’s own affidavit states that wife “technically worked for her family’s business,
Metal Matic, Inc.,” but “she never actually went to work.” He asserted that wife “simply
received a pay check and had a title and position” at Metal-Matic.
4
Because the district court’s finding that the separation agreement was designed to
allow wife’s family to provide her with financial support is not clearly erroneous, we
conclude the separation agreement is nonmarital property. Wife received the benefits of
the separation agreement as a result of her family’s desire to provide her with financial
support. Unlike the husband in Grigsby, she was not in a position to seek the benefits only
because of her employment status during the marriage. The separation agreement was
properly considered nonmarital property.
B. The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to award
husband a disproportionate share of the marital assets.
Upon dissolution, “[t]he court shall make a just and equitable division of the marital
property of the parties . . . after making findings regarding the division of the property.”
Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1 (2014). These findings must be based on all relevant factors,
including the age, health, employability, needs, occupation, and income of each party. Id.
And the court must “consider the contribution of each in the acquisition, preservation,
depreciation or appreciation in the amount or value of the marital property, as well as the
contribution of a spouse as a homemaker.” Id.
“A [district] court has broad discretion in evaluating and dividing property in a
marital dissolution and will not be overturned except for abuse of discretion.” Antone v.
Antone, 645 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002). “We will affirm the [district] court’s division
of property if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though we might have
taken a different approach.” Id. “An equitable division of marital property is not
5
necessarily an equal division.” Crosby v. Crosby, 587 N.W.2d 292, 297 (Minn. App.
1998), review denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 1999).
Husband argues that the district court abused its discretion because he “was entitled
to a disproportionate share of the marital property to allow for an equitable division of the
total [marital and nonmarital] estate.” We are not persuaded that the district court failed to
consider all of the relevant factors or otherwise abused its discretion. The district court
was required to make a just and equitable division of the marital property, not of all
resources available to the parties.1 Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. The district court noted
that husband provided no support for his proposed distribution other than the bare assertion
that wife would have more total assets if the marital property were equally divided because
she had significant nonmarital property.
It is undisputed that wife has been permanently and significantly disabled since
suffering a stroke several years prior to the marriage. And the record supports the district
court’s finding that husband’s temporary disability has abated and he can re-enter the
workforce. The district court also noted that husband did not provide any evidence to
support his argument that he needed the money to repay his family for his living expenses.
Finally, the district court chose to award wife slightly more of the marital property because
she made efforts to preserve its value during the dissolution proceeding. These are all
1
A district court may award up to half of one spouse’s nonmarital property if it determines
that the other spouse’s “resources or property . . . are so inadequate as to work an unfair
hardship.” Minn. Stat. § 518.52, subd. 2 (2014). Husband sought an award of wife’s
nonmarital property, but the district court denied the request after determining it was not
necessary to prevent unfair hardship. Husband does not challenge this determination on
appeal.
6
relevant factors to be considered under Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1. Because the district
court’s decision had an acceptable basis in fact and principle, we discern no abuse of
discretion.
II. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding husband spousal
maintenance of $1,300 per month for four months.
A district court may award spousal maintenance if a spouse demonstrates that he
does not have sufficient resources to provide for his reasonable needs or cannot reasonably
provide adequate self-support. Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 1 (2014); Robert v. Zygmunt,
652 N.W.2d 537, 544 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Dec. 30, 2002). Such
awards must be in an amount and duration that the district court deems just after
considering the ability of the recipient to provide for his needs independently, the age and
health of the recipient, the standard of living during the marriage, the length of the
marriage, the contribution of both parties to marital property, and the resources of the
obligor. Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2 (2014). “The purpose of a maintenance award is
to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the
marital standard of living.” Peterka v. Peterka, 675 N.W.2d 353, 358 (Minn. App. 2004).
We review a district court’s spousal-maintenance award for an abuse of discretion.
Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997). We view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the district court’s findings and defer to its credibility determinations.
Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000). Findings of fact related
7
to spousal maintenance will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. Gessner v.
Gessner, 487 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Minn. App. 1992).
Husband challenges both the amount and duration of the maintenance award. And
he asserts that the district court erred as a matter of law by not reserving jurisdiction over
the issue of maintenance, effectively preventing him from seeking modification or
extension of the award. We address each argument in turn.
Amount of Award
Husband argues he is entitled to spousal maintenance in the amount of $1,667 per
month, which does not come “close to the marital standard of living.” We disagree.
Husband initially submitted a list of monthly expenses totaling $1,450. The district court
rejected husband’s claimed expenses of $100 per month for clothes and $100 per month
for restaurants as inconsistent with the parties’ lifestyle during the marriage. The district
court determined that $1,300 per month would be an appropriate amount.
We agree with the district court that the record contains little information about the
parties’ lifestyle and standard of living during the marriage. But the parties chose to present
the case based on written submissions, and those submissions support the district court’s
finding. Husband’s affidavit states that finances were always tight, and the parties used an
annual gift of $20,000 from wife’s grandparents to catch up on their bills. Wife similarly
averred that money was an issue for most of the marriage. On this record, we conclude the
8
district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding spousal maintenance in the amount
of $1,300 per month.
Duration of Award
Husband contends that he is entitled to spousal maintenance for a period of 24
months, “which reflects the time necessary for [him] to find suitable employment and
become self-sustaining.” This argument is unavailing. As the district court cogently noted,
husband did not explain why he needed 24 months to become self-supporting, or describe
what, if any, training or education he planned to seek. Nor did he submit evidence to
support his claim that he was trying his hardest to find a job, or provide information about
his peak earning years.
The district court found that low-level positions in the restaurant industry were
appropriate for husband based on his prior employment. The district court also found that
husband did not forgo earnings or employment opportunities during the marriage, nor did
his education, skills, or experience become outmoded during the parties’ relatively short
marriage. Finally, the district court noted it was “struck by” wife’s assertion that husband
was unwilling to work during the marriage despite her requests that he obtain employment.
This belies husband’s assertion that he was a traditional homemaker during the marriage.
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding husband
spousal maintenance for a period of four months. The court’s findings of fact are not
9
clearly erroneous, and the court’s analysis is consistent with the statutory factors delineated
in Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2.
Failure to Reserve Jurisdiction
Husband argues that the district court committed legal error by effectively
preventing husband from seeking a modification or extension of the spousal-maintenance
award. The October 2015 dissolution judgment directs spousal maintenance to be paid for
four months starting on May 1, 2015. Thus, by the time of the judgment, the four months
that wife was responsible for spousal maintenance had already passed. Husband argues
that this prevented him from seeking modification or extension of the award because a
district court does not have jurisdiction to consider such a request when there is no existing
obligation and the court has not reserved jurisdiction. Eckert v. Eckert, 299 Minn. 120,
125, 216 N.W.2d 837, 840 (1974). We are not persuaded.
As discussed above, we have considered husband’s arguments concerning both the
amount and duration of the maintenance award and find them to be without merit. Husband
was therefore not prevented from obtaining judicial review of the maintenance award.
Affirmed.
10