Jurkovich v. Jurkovich
| Decision Date | 19 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | A17-1036,A17-0800 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of: Justin James Jurkovich, petitioner, Appellant, v. Rebecca Jean Jurkovich, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
Affirmed
Washington County District Court
John M. Jerabek, Thomas Tuft, Letty M-S Van Ert, Tuft, Lach, Jerabek & O'Connoll, PLLC, Maplewood, Minnesota (for appellant)
Christopher D. Johnson, Samantha J. Graf, Johnson/Turner Legal, Forest Lake, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Jesson, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Before their marriage of 17 years was dissolved, appellant Justin Jurkovich and respondent Rebecca Jurkovich lived an affluent lifestyle. While they stipulated to many issues in the dissolution proceeding, spousal maintenance was a source of dispute. After considering the income of both parties, their standard of living, their monthly budgets, and other factors, the district court awarded Rebecca $9,955 per month in permanent spousal maintenance. Justin appealed the district court's decision to award permanent, instead of temporary, spousal maintenance. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the statutory factors it must consider when awarding spousal maintenance. We disagree and affirm the district court.
Respondent Rebecca Jean Jurkovich met appellant Justin James Jurkovich while still in undergraduate school, and they married in 1998, a year after her graduation. Both Rebecca and Justin worked early on in the marriage. Rebecca began work as a fire-claims adjuster, and after a couple of years, she became an in-house sales employee. Over the next several years, Rebecca moved on to other positions, which included mortgage underwriting and compliance auditing. Her salary for these positions ranged from the upper twenty thousands to the upper thirty thousands. Meanwhile, Justin started a mortgage company, Apollo Home Mortgage, in 1999.
In 2003 or 2004, Rebecca considered attending dental school, but Justin asked her if she could help him with Apollo Home Mortgage. The company was growing and he needed assistance in the office. She agreed, and they both worked together at Apollo Home Mortgage. However, there is no evidence that Rebecca received a salary or any compensation for this position, outside of funding for her 401K account.
As Justin's income significantly grew through Apollo Home Mortgage, so did the couple's expenses. They bought motorcycles, boats, recreational vehicles, and seasonal cars. Vacations and cruises were frequent, and the couple built a new house on a lake. They started going to nicer restaurants and collecting wine as a hobby. As the district court stated, the couple had a high standard of living.
In 2007, the mortgage industry plummeted. Justin was forced to dissolve Apollo Home Mortgage, and a separate company assumed its employees and business. While no longer the owner, Justin was retained at the successor business as a branch manager. Soon he moved to a different company. Rebecca, on the other hand, transitioned into a stay-at-home role after Apollo Home Mortgage dissolved, as the first of three children was born in 2008. Justin soon recovered from the collapse of the mortgage industry: he earned approximately $181,000 in wages in 2010 and then $298,000 in 2011. From 2012 through 2015, Justin's average annual income was $799,470. During this period, Rebecca worked part-time on occasion, but primarily remained at home to raise their children.
In 2015, Justin started working at Bay Equity as a regional sales manager and suggested to Rebecca that it would be good for her to start working again, hoping they would find more in common to discuss, given recent tension in the marriage. With Justin's help, Rebecca was hired as a business development manager at Bay Equity with a monthly income of $6,000. Justin was her direct supervisor. Working together did not resolve their relationship hurdles, and after 17 years of marriage, they separated in June 2015. At the time, Rebecca was 40 years old and Justin was 42.
After the couple decided to dissolve their marriage, Rebecca quit her position at Bay Equity and started working at a new company as a loan processor earning $4,583.33 a month. Shortly after, Rebecca moved to her now current position at American Mortgage & Equity Consultants, Inc., with the same job title and same gross monthly income. This position also includes incentives: she receives $100 per loan she closes as long as she closes 11 or more files a month.1 Meanwhile Justin continued working at Bay Equity with a gross monthly income of $65,900.
Prior to going to trial in June 2016, the parties submitted stipulated findings of fact and conclusions of law. This set forth all of their assets, which included: a homestead; a townhome; three parcels of land; retirement accounts and plans, shared and sole bank accounts; three automobiles; a boat, multiple utility vehicles; and personal property valued at over $50,000. They agreed on most issues: Rebecca would have sole physical custody of the children while there would be joint legal custody; Rebecca would receive the homestead; Justin would receive the townhome; the parcels of land would be sold and the revenues split; Justin would receive the bank accounts and retirement accounts in his name; Rebecca would receive the shared accounts and retirement accounts in her name worth a total value of approximately $270,000;2 and Rebecca would receive two of the automobiles and the utility vehicles. They did, however, reserve various financial issues, including amount and duration of spousal maintenance, for trial.
The parties proceeded to trial on June 1, 2016. The trial lasted one day and there were five witnesses: Rebecca's expert witness on finance, Justin's expert witness on finance, Rebecca's father, Rebecca, and Justin. The majority of the testimony focused on Rebecca's estimated budget for her and her children's monthly expenses. Rebecca put forth an estimated monthly budget of $15,918, and her expert witness testified that Rebecca would need spousal maintenance of $15,435 a month and child support of $2,414 a month to cover the budget, taking taxes into account. Justin's expert witness testified that Rebecca's estimated budget was excessive, and a more reasonable amount was between $10,273 and $11,773. Justin's witness did not testify to the appropriate duration of maintenance. No evidence of Rebecca's future potential earnings or potential job growth was provided at trial.3 Nor were any vocational evaluations of Rebecca conducted.4
In September 2016, the district court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court held in favor of Justin on the issue of amount of spousal maintenance, finding that Rebecca's monthly expenses were $11,157.13.5 Taking into account taxes and Rebecca's wages, the court found that Rebecca would need $3,254 in child support and $9,155 monthly in permanent spousal maintenance to cover her expenses. The parties were accustomed to a high standard of living, the court found. Justin was the primary provider, while Rebecca was "primarily a homemaker" and the court further pointed out that Rebeccastopped working and stayed at home so that Justin could build his business. As a result, the court determined that Rebecca's income was not nearly sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage.
In October 2016, Justin filed a motion for new trial, amended findings, and for an amended judgment. He requested that the findings be amended to reflect Rebecca's extensive work history and that she does have the means to be self-supporting. The motion requested that the spousal maintenance amount be reduced and that it should be temporary—not permanent—spousal maintenance. In January 2017, a hearing was held on the motion to amend findings or for a new trial. The hearing primarily focused on Justin's argument that permanent spousal maintenance was inappropriate because Rebecca is in her early 40s and currently employed with the means to better her situation. The district court stated permanent spousal maintenance was appropriate. The court reasoned Rebecca "doesn't stand a prayer of ever generating" enough income to reach her monthly budget. The court did issue amended findings that changed the child support from $3,254 to $2,686, which caused the spousal maintenance amount to increase from $9,155 to $9,955.
This appeal follows.
Justin contends that the district court abused its discretion by granting permanent, instead of temporary, spousal maintenance. He does not contest the amount of spousal maintenance. This court reviews the district court's determination of the proper durationof spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion. Maiers v. Maiers, 775 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Minn. App. 2009). And an abuse of discretion occurs when the district court makes findings unsupported by the record or when it improperly applies the law. Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen, 767 N.W.2d 711, 716 (Minn. App. 2009), review granted (Minn. Sept. 29, 2009), and appeal dismissed (Minn. Feb. 1, 2010).
Justin's arguments are numerous, but primarily fall within two categories: (1) the district court misapplied several of the spousal maintenance statutory factors and made findings for those factors that were unsupported by the record; and (2) the district court failed to properly weigh those factors. Finally, Justin argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to include incentives to rehabilitate or failing to award temporary maintenance while reserving the issue of future maintenance. We address each argument in turn.
The district court properly applied the statutory factors regarding spousal maintenance.
District courts may...
To continue reading
Request your trial