In re the Marriage of: Jason John Helms, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0854

In re the Marriage of: Jason John Helms, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Mary Jo Helms, co-petitioner,
Respondent.

Filed November 27, 2017
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-06-8666

Todd R. Haugan, Haugan Law Office, Ltd., Wayzata, Minnesota (for appellant)

Del A. Blocher, Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to modify his spousal -maintenance
obligation, arguing that the district court abused its discretion either because respondent’s
cohabitation alone should have warranted modification or because the district court failed
2
to consider the factors in Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6 (2016). Appellant also argues that
the district court should have terminated his obligation to maintain life insurance to secure
his support obligation. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Jason Helms and respondent Mary Helms married in 1977 , and their
marriage dissolved in 2007, pursuant to a stipulated dissolution judgment and decree. The
judgment and decree awarded respondent $1,000 per month in spousal maintenance and
required appellant to maintain life insurance to secure his support obligations “[f]or so long
as [appellant] has a child support obligation and a spousal maintenance obligation pursuant
to this agreement[.]” The youngest of the parties’ children was a minor at the time of
dissolution, but has since emancipated; thus, appellant’s child-support obligation has been
terminated. Respondent concedes that she is cohabitating with an unrelated adult male,
S.G., as joint tenants in her Hudson, Wisconsin homestead and in S.G.’s Wausau,
Wisconsin real property.
In May 2017, the district court denied appellant’s motion to modify his spousal-
maintenance obligation, finding that appellant’s and respondent’s circumstances have not
substantially changed and that S.G. does not contribute to respondent’s share of her joint-
living expenses or her individual expenses. The district court also ordered appellant to
verify that he has maintained life insurance to secure his spousal-maintenance obligation.
However, the district court refused to consider whether appellant was required to maintain
such life insurance because the parties’ correspondences addressing this issue were
untimely and not in motion form. This appeal follows.
3
D E C I S I O N
This court reviews a district court decision whether to modify an existing
maintenance award for an abuse of discretion. Hecker v. Hecker, 568 N.W.2d 705, 709 -
10 (Minn. 1997 ). Regarding maintenance, a district court abuses its discretion if its
findings of fact are unsupported by the record or if it misapplies the law. Dobrin v. Dobrin,
569 N.W.2d 199, 202 & n.3 (Minn. 1997). This court reviews a district court’s factual
findings concerning maintenance for clear error. Peterka v. Peterka, 675 N.W.2d 353, 357
(Minn. App. 2004). A finding is clearly erroneous if it is “manifestly contrary to the weight
of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” Tonka Tours,
Inc. v. Chadima, 372 N.W.2d 723, 726 (Minn. 1985).
A district court may modify an award for spousal maintenance if the moving party
proves that, since the spousal -maintenance obligation was established or last modified,
there has been a substantial change in circumstan ces. Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen , 767
N.W.2d 711, 716 -17 (Minn. App. 2009). “After showing changed circumstances, the
moving party must demonstrate that the change renders the original award unreasonable
and unfair.” Id. at 717; see Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a) (2016). A finding of changed
circumstances is a factual finding. Prange v. Prange , 437 N.W.2d 69, 70 (Minn. App.
1989), review denied (Minn. May 12, 1989).
Appellant argues that respondent’s admission that she is cohabitating warrants
modification because cohabitation alone renders his obligation unreasonable and unfair.
Appellant suggests that the court should “infer” that respondent has received an economic
benefit from cohabit ating with S.G., but the district court found that “[a]ny economi c
4
benefit derived from cohabitating has not appreciably reduced [respondent’s] monthly
expenses since the date of the dissolution. Petitioner is currently unable to meet her
reasonable monthly expenses without liquidating assets.” Prior to the enactment of Minn.
Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6, Minnesota courts had consistently held that mere cohabitation was
insufficient to modify spousal maintenance. Abbott v. Abbott, 282 N.W.2d 561, 566 (Minn.
1979) (holding that cohabitation in itself is not a basis for termination or reduction of
maintenance, except as it affects recipient’s economic wellbeing); Sieber v. Sieber , 258
N.W.2d 754, 757 (Minn. 1977) (holding the existence of meretricious relationship between
divorced wife and another man, standing alone, would not be suffi cient ground to justify
spousal-maintenance termination). The plain language of Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6
requires more than cohabitation alone. It requires the fulfillment of at le ast some of the
four factors that it lists . The statute says, “[i] n determining if maintenance should be
modified due to cohabitation, the court shall consider: [the four factors.]” The district court
did not abuse its discretion by refusing to modify appellant’s spousal -maintenance
obligation based solely on respondent’s cohabitation.
Appellant alternatively argues that the district court erred by failing to analyze the
circumstances under the factors of Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6. However, this argument
has been forfeited because the district court did not consider it. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d
580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (holding that this court generally will not address issues raised for
the first time on appeal). The district court found that at the modification hearing on
January 11, 2017, appellant conceded that the law required him to satisfy Minn. Stat.
§ 518A.39, subd. 2 (2016) before the district court could consider whether maintenance
5
should be modified based on cohabitation. Appellant did not provide this court with a
transcript of that hearing, and when no transcript is provided, we accept the district court’s
factual findings as true. See Duluth Herald & News Tribune v. Plymouth Optical Co., 286
Minn. 495, 498, 176 N.W.2d 552, 555 (1970). To the extent appellant now argues that
Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 6 gives him an alternate path toward maintenance
modification, completely separate from Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2, that argument has
been forfeited. How those statutes interact with one another is unsettled law. A fter
appellant’s concession, as a threshold matter, the district court analyzed appellant’s motion
within the framework of § 518A.39, subd. 2, and it found that appellant di d not meet his
burden of proving his current maintenance obligation is unreasonable and unfair under the
circumstances.
Based on all the evidence appellant provided , the district court found that although
appellant’s monthly expenses have increased, his income has also increased, and he is able
to meet his monthly expenses, including his maintenance obligation. The district court also
found that while respondent’s monthly expenses have decreased, her monthly income has
also decreased due to a disabling injury. Appellant provided no evidence that respondent’s
cohabitation has benefitted her financially.
Based on these factual findings, the district court concluded that appellant did not
prove that there has been a substantial change in circumstances warranting a maintenance
modification. Since the district court’s findings are reasonably supported by the evidence,
the findings are not clearly erroneous and the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying appellant’s motion to modify.
6
Appellant also argues that the district court erred by refusing to terminate his
obligation to provide life insurance to secure his maintenance obligation. However, the
district court did not consider the merits of this argument. After the parties submitted their
proposed orders regarding maintenance modification to the district court, respondent’s
attorney submitted correspondence concerning appellant’s obligation to maintain life
insurance under the judgment and decree. Neither of the parties’ motions addres sed this
issue, so the district court refused to rule on whether the judgment and decree’s life
insurance requirement remained in effect. However, the district court did order appellant
to either provide proof of life insurance or to clearly state that he is not maintaining life
insurance. The district court expressly state d it will not consider whether appellant is
required to maintain insurance until a party brings a motion addressing that issue. We will
not review this issue before the district court has ruled on it.
Affirmed.