Cited by

2(e) (citing Minn. Stat. § 518.552 (2018)); -36 (Minn. 2009)

6 Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood , review denied (Minn. Jan.

2(e) (citing Minn. Stat. § 518.552 ); see also Lee v. Lee , , 635-36 (Minn. 2009).

-62 (Minn. App. 2008), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds

Lee v. Lee , , 637 (Minn. 2009).

Determining a party’s reasonable expenses is a case-specific inquiry that “depend[s] on the unique characteristics of the party seeking maintenance and the standard of living established during the marriage.”

d 631, 638-39 (Minn. 2009).

2d 51, 60 n.2 (Minn. App. 2008) (stating that “equalization of the parties’ incomes by an adjustment of maintenance is without authority or precedent”), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds , see also Snyder v. Snyder, 298 Minn. 43, 53, (stating that maintenance exists to provide for the recipient spouse’s needs, not to act as a “lifetime profit-sharing plan”).

(remanding for the district court to make factual findings supporting its discretionary decision regard ing the effective date for modification of maintenance).

Lee v. Lee , , 637 (Minn. 2009).

Lee v. Lee , see Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd.

“[S]tatutory construction is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Lee v. Lee

6 “[S]tatutory construction is a question of law, which we review de novo.”

d 631, 637 (Minn. 2009).

Mother relies on Haefele, d at 710, for the propositio n that payments must be “received” to be included in a parties “gross income.” In Haefele, the supreme court noted that “the Legislature’s use of the term ‘payment’ in [section 518A.29] genera lly means that a benef it must be actually received by the parent, as opposed to me

Section 518A.29(a) applies to spousal main tenance because “the legislature intended section 518A.29’s definition of gross income to apply to chapter 518, which governs maintenance.” n.5 (Minn. 2009).

To support his argument that the trust income may not be considered, and O’Brien v. O’Brien

(interpreting the 2008 version of the statute).

See Lee v. Lee , (remanding for the district court to make factual findings su pporting its choice of effective date for modification of maintenance, which is committed to the district court’s discretion).

“[Statutory construction is a question of law, which we review de novo.”

d 631, 637 (Minn. 2009).

“The concept of ‘reasonable needs’ is a malleable one,” but awards of spousal maintenance should align “with the circumstances and living standard of the parties at the time of the divorce.” Lee v. Lee , (Mi nn.

d 631, 637 (Minn. 2009).

“[S]tatutory construction is a question of law, which we review de novo.”

Rather, the obligee can expect a sum that will keep with the circumstances and living standards of the parties at the time of the divorce.” (quotations and citation omitted).