Teresa J. Bulen, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-0941

Teresa J. Bulen, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Michael E. Bulen,
Appellant

Filed December 4, 2017
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Lake County District Court
File Nos. 38-FA-10-26, 38-CR-09-666

Teresa J. Bulen, Finland, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Bradford Colbert, Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and Reilly,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
WORKE, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request
to modify his spousal-maintenance obligation. We affirm.

2
FACTS
In June 2012, appellant -husband Michael E. Bulen and respondent -wife Teresa J.
Bulen obtained a divorce. The district court awarded wife temporary spousal maintenance
of $200 per month for a period of ten years. At the time of the dissolution decree, husband
was incarcerated at Minnesota Correctional Facility (MCF)-Faribault with an anticipated
release in June 2019. Husband was employed in prison, earning an average monthly
income of $640.
By March 2015, husband’s earnings increased to approximately $1,000 per month.
In June 2015, husband was transferred to Freeborn County Jail, lost his job, and was unable
to obtain employment. Husband moved to modify his spousal-maintenance obligation, but
the district court denied his motion in February 2016, concluding that husband failed to
sufficiently prove his change in financial circumstances. Husband subsequently filed a
request for reconsideration proffering evidence that he was earning no income, and the
district court granted husband’s request.
In June 2016, husband returned to MCF-Faribault and obtained employment at a
rate of $0.50 per hour. The district court modified husband’s spousal -maintenance
obligation, in September 2016, to 50% of his total monthly earnings. The district court
ordered that, upon his release, husband’s monthly spousal-maintenance obligation would
be $50 for the first two months and then return to $200 per month through May 2022.
Husband request ed permission to move for reconsideration, arguing that his
monthly income was so low that the district court’s award would create substantial hardship

3
for him while failing to provide wife with necessary support. The district court denied
husband’s request. This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Husband argues that the district court abused its discretion by declining to eliminate
his spousal -maintenance obligation for the remainder of his incarceration. The district
court has broad discretion in deciding whether to modify an existing spousal-maintenance
award. Kielley v. Kielley, 674 N.W.2d 770, 775 (Minn. App. 2004). This court reviews a
district court’s decision regarding whether to modify an existing maintenance award for an
abuse of discretion. Hecker v. Hecker, 568 N.W.2d 705, 710 (Minn. 1997). Similarly, a
district court’s maintenance award will not be rev ersed absent a clear abuse of discretion.
McConnell v. McConnell , 710 N.W.2d 583, 585 (Minn. App. 2006). The district court
abuses its discretion when its decision is against logic and the facts in the record. Kielley,
674 N.W.2d at 775 . “Findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance must be upheld
unless they are clearly erroneous.” Gessner v. Gessner, 487 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Minn. App.
1992).
The spousal-maintenance-modification statute provides that the terms of a spousal-
maintenance award may be modified upon a showing that the obligor’s gross income has
substantially increased or decreased, making the terms of the maintenance award
unreasonable and unfair. Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd. 2(a)(1) (2016). The district court,
in its Sep tember 2016 order, concluded that husband established that his earning s had
substantially decreased and that his income was unlikely to substantially increase in the
near future, rendering the terms of the previous spousal-maintenance award unreasonable

4
and unfair. Husband does not contest the district court’s conclusion that he was entitled to
a modification of the spousal-maintenance award. Rather, he argues that the district court
abused its discretion by declining to entirely eliminate his spousal-maintenance obligation
for the remainder of his incarceration for two reasons: (1) wife do es not need spousal
maintenance, and (2) husband cannot afford to pay spousal maintenance.
These assertions are not supported by the record, which contains no evidence
concerning wife’s ability to support herself or her current lifestyle. Similarly, the record
contains no evidence concerning husband’s inability to pay for his basic necessities.
Therefore, because husband does not challenge the district court’s finding that wife is
entitled to spousal maintenance, and because husband failed to produce evidence
demonstrating that wife no longer requires maintenance or that he cannot afford to pay for
his basic necessities if spousal maintenance continues, we conclude that the district court’s
findings were not clearly erroneous.
In September 2016 , the district court acknowledged that wife had obtained an
accounting degree and the parties’ minor child had reached the age of majority. The district
court noted, however, tha t spousal maintenance was necessary only “in part [] to assist
[wife] in supporting the parties’ minor child until he graduated from high school, and to
assist [wife] in obtaining her accounting degree.” The district court also explained that it
chose to a ward a percentage of husband’s monthly income “[i]n order to establish a fair
ongoing spousal maintenance obligation that will increase if [husband ]’s wages increase
while incarcerated.” In its subsequent order denying husband’s request for reconsideration,
the district court clarified that although husband’s earnings at the time of the order were

5
low, “[his] income while incarcerated has fluctuated greatly over the course of these
proceedings. The [district] [c]ourt set [husband]’s spousal maintenance obligation at 50%
of his earnings to balance his ability to pay with [wife]’s need for support.”
The district court’s analysis reveals that it considered wife’s financial need, as well
as her ability to meet that need, balance d against husband’s financial c ondition. See
McConnell, 710 N.W.2d at 58 5 (“The basic consideration is the financial need of the
spouse receiving the maintenance, and the ability to meet that need balanced against the
financial condition of the spouse providing that maintenance.”). Be cause the district
court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and because the district court properly analyzed
husband’s modification motions, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by declining to eliminate husband’s spousal -maintenance obligation for the remainder of
his incarceration.
Affirmed.