Keeler v. Keeler (In re Marriage of Keeler)
| Decision Date | 13 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | A18-2104 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of: Larry Allan Keeler, petitioner, Appellant, v. Michelle Marie Keeler, 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This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 (2018).
Affirmed
Mille Lacs County District Court
Tifanne E. E. Wolter, Henningson & Snoxell, Ltd., Maple Grove, Minnesota (for appellant)
Michelle M. Keeler, Milaca, Minnesota (pro se respondent)
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this appeal from the district court's judgment and decree dissolving the parties' marriage, appellant-husband challenges the district court's award of temporary spousal maintenance to respondent-wife, its valuation of a marital business so as to include goodwill, and its order that he obtain life insurance to secure his spousal-maintenance obligation. We affirm.
In August 2017, appellant Larry Allan Keeler (husband) petitioned for dissolution of his 25-year marriage to respondent Michelle Marie Keeler (wife). The case was tried on February 9, 2018. Husband was represented by legal counsel. Wife was self-represented. Wife testified that she sought spousal maintenance of $800 per month for 12 years, but she did not submit evidence regarding her monthly living expenses. The district court allowed the parties to submit proposed findings after the trial. On February 22, wife submitted proposed findings indicating that she was willing to waive spousal maintenance.
On March 14, the district court held a hearing to determine wife's intentions regarding spousal maintenance. Wife clarified that she would waive maintenance only if husband agreed to transfer title of the parties' vehicles to their children. The district court informed the parties that it would keep the record open so they could negotiate an agreement regarding spousal maintenance. Husband's counsel agreed to file a letter with the court by March 30 regarding the parties' settlement efforts.
The district court informed the parties that if they did not reach an agreement, it would need average monthly living expenses from wife to determine the spousal-maintenance issue. Husband objected, arguing that he would be prejudiced by late submissions because he would not be able to cross-examine wife regarding whether the expenses were reasonable and necessary. The district court advised husband that the recordfrom the February 9 trial had been left open for submissions and that neither party was in any different position than when the trial ended. But to address husband's concern, the district court required wife to provide her monthly living expenses to husband's counsel by March 21, so husband could respond to her claimed expenses by the March 30 submission deadline.
Wife submitted her monthly living expenses to the court on March 20. On March 29, husband's counsel filed a letter indicating that the parties had not reached an agreement regarding spousal maintenance. Husband did not submit any information regarding his monthly expenses.
The district court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, order for judgment, and judgment and decree on April 23, 2018. It awarded wife temporary spousal maintenance of $450 per month for 12 years. The district court also ordered husband to obtain and maintain a life insurance policy in a minimum amount of $200,000 to secure his spousal-maintenance obligation.
When dividing the marital estate, the district court valued husband's business, Keeler Stucco. Husband testified that the value of the business's equipment was between $1,500 and $3,500. The court determined that Keeler Stucco had goodwill value beyond that of its equipment, and it concluded that wife was entitled to a portion of the business because she did its bookkeeping during the marriage and played a role in the success of thecompany while she was married to husband. The district court ordered husband to pay wife $2,000 as her share of the business.1
Husband moved for amended findings and a new trial. After a hearing on that motion, the district court amended some of its findings regarding the value of Keeler Stucco, but it did not amend its finding that the business had goodwill value or its order that husband pay wife $2,000 for her interest in the business. It also declined to amend its spousal-maintenance award. But the district court ordered a new trial on the life-insurance issue, recognizing that $200,000 exceeded husband's total spousal-maintenance obligation. The purpose of the new trial was to ascertain the cost of life-insurance premiums and husband's ability to pay those premiums.
When the parties appeared in district court for the new trial on the life-insurance issue, husband's counsel indicated that the parties had agreed that husband would obtain and maintain a life-insurance policy in an amount necessary to secure payment of any outstanding spousal-maintenance obligation. The district court issued an order implementing that agreement on October 26. Husband appeals.
Husband contends that the district court abused its discretion by ordering him to pay spousal maintenance of $450 per month for 12 years. We review the district court'sdecision to award spousal maintenance for an abuse of discretion. Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997). The district court abuses its discretion when it makes findings unsupported by the evidence or improperly applies the law. Id. at 202 & n.3. Findings of fact regarding spousal maintenance are upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. Gessner v. Gessner, 487 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Minn. App. 1992).
In a dissolution proceeding, the court may grant spousal maintenance if it finds that the spouse seeking maintenance either "lacks sufficient property . . . to provide for [her] reasonable needs . . . considering the standard of living established during the marriage" or "is unable to provide adequate self-support, after considering the standard of living established during the marriage." Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 1 (2018); see Lyon v. Lyon, 439 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. 1989) (). However, a spousal-maintenance award should not be limited to the recipient's "bare necessities of life." Arundel v. Arundel, 281 N.W.2d 663, 666-67 (Minn. 1979). Instead, the recipient "is entitled to maintain her present standard of living to the extent that [the obligor] is reasonably able to provide." Id. at 667.
Husband argues that the district court's findings do not demonstrate that wife needs spousal maintenance. He notes that wife was self-sufficient during the three years preceding the trial and that her monthly net income is greater than her monthly budget. The district court recognized that wife had been self-sufficient since the parties' separation. Nevertheless, the district court reasoned that spousal maintenance was appropriate because wife "suffer[ed] a permanent loss in career opportunity and income" that will "likely affecther ability to become gainfully employed" as a result of her sacrifices from being a homemaker and doing the bookkeeping for Keeler Stucco throughout the marriage.
The district court also reasoned that wife is entitled to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage, finding that the parties enjoyed a "comfortable standard of living." That finding largely was based on the fact that wife lived in a single-family home during the marriage and lived in an apartment at the time of trial. In its amended findings, the court identified several other circumstances demonstrating the parties' standard of living, including the parties' income of $45,000 to $55,000 per year, their collection of classic muscle cars, husband's collection of hunting firearms, and his trips to Africa to hunt wild game.
Husband argues that the parties lived well beyond their means and frequently had to borrow money from his parents. The district court recognized that the parties had received occasional financial assistance from husband's parents, but nevertheless found that husband's income was the primary support for the parties' lifestyle.
District courts have broad discretion in determining whether to award spousal maintenance. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d at 202. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in reasoning that wife had a need for spousal maintenance based on her sacrifices and standard of living during the marriage.
Husband next argues that the district court abused its discretion because it did not adequately consider his ability to pay. When determining the amount and duration of spousal maintenance, the district court must consider a variety of factors, including "the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet needs while meeting thoseof the spouse seeking maintenance." Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(g) (2018). Husband argues that the district court made inadequate findings regarding his reasonable needs and net income.
The district court's order notes the lack of evidence regarding husband's monthly living expenses, but it faults husband for this deficiency. Husband argues that he did not have to provide evidence of his inability to pay because wife first had the burden to show need. See Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d at 202 (). And husband disputes the district court's description of the proceedings, asserting that although the district court allowed wife to submit a monthly budget, it did not allow him to do the same.
At the hearing on March 14, 2018, the district court did not explicitly tell husband that he should submit information regarding his monthly expenses. But it is apparent that the district court expected husband to do so because the court informed the parties that if they did not reach an agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial