In re the Marriage of: Susan Lee Wood, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0722

In re the Marriage of:
Susan Lee Wood, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Brad Wesley Wood,
Appellant.

Filed April 15, 2019
Reversed and remanded
Halbrooks, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19AV-FA-16-2345

Jacob M. Birkholz, Birkholz & Associates, LLC, Mankato, Minnesota (for appellant)

Susan Wood, Sleepy Eye, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s award of spousal maintenance, arguing that
the district court abused its discretion by failing to base its award on the parties’ net

2
incomes and by awarding excessive spousal maintenance to wife. We reverse and remand
for further proceedings.
FACTS
Appellant-husband Brad Wesley Wood and respondent-wife Susan Wood married
in 1981 and have four adult children. Wife filed for dissolution in August 2016 and sought
spousal maintenance. The district court held a two-day bench trial.
At the time of trial, husband was employed as a full -time lineman for Freeborn -
Mower Cooperative. Husband provided copies of his pay stubs to the district court. Based
on the paystubs, the district court found that husband earned $6,824.13 in base gross wages
per month and an average of $654.31 in overtime per month for a total of $7,478.44. The
district court found that husband’s reasonable monthly expenses were $4,655.
Wife was unemployed at the time of trial, having just been laid off from her position
at Workforce Services. But based on an expert’s vocational assessment, the district court
imputed $2,860 pe r month in gross income to wife . The district court found that wife’s
reasonable monthly expenses were $5,825.
The distric t court dissolved the marriage and divided the marital property. The
district court analyzed the statutory factors for awarding spousal maintenance pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2 (2018), and determined that the factors favored an award of
spousal maintenance to wife. Noting that wife “is unable to provide adequate self-support
based on the standard of living established during the marriage,” the district court awarded
temporary spousal maintenance to wife in the amount of $2,700 per month for five years.

3
In determining the maintenance award, the district court stated that it was “unab le
to calculate the anticipated net income of [wife] for the purposes of determining spousal
maintenance. In lieu of using net income, the Court therefore finds it is equitable to use
the parties’ gross incomes to determine spousal maintenance in this cas e.” The district
court reasoned that, after deducting the parties’ reasonabl e monthly expenses from their
gross incomes, husband had $2,823.44 in income remaining, but wife had “a monthly
deficit of $2,965.” The district court noted that husband “earns a monthly income sufficient
to meet his needs as well as the needs of [wife]” and concluded that “an equitable award
of $2,700 per month to [wife] in maintenance will leave each party closer to meeting their
own needs.”
Husband moved for amended findings of fact, contending that the district court erred
by using the parties’ gross income s instead of net incomes and by awarding maintenance
in the amount of $2,700. The district court granted husband’s motion i n part, and denied
it in part .1 The district court noted that spousal maintenance “was a central issue in this
case” and that “the parties should be expected to introduce evidence of their respective net
incomes.” Neither party had introduced evidence of wife’s net income. The district court
stated that while it “agree[d] with [husband’s] premise that the use of net income would
result in a more accurate determination of the parties’ needs and, therefore, the spousal
maintenance award,” it could not be e xpected to “divine new evidence from the actual
evidence submitted by the parties at trial.” The district court reasoned that the use of gross

1 The district court’s amended findings concerned matters that are not the subject of this
appeal.

4
incomes was reasonable because it allowed the parties to include costs such as health-
insurance premiums and “ot her mandatory paycheck deductions” as part of the parties’
monthly expenses that would have been struck had the district court relied on net incomes.
The district court did not modify the amount of the maintenance award in its amended
order. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Husband asserts that the district court erred in its determination of the amount of
wife’s spousal maintenance. We review an award of spousal maintenance for an abuse of
discretion. Kampf v. Kampf , 732 N.W.2d 630, 633 (Minn. A pp. 2007), review denied
(Minn. Aug. 21, 2007). During a dissolution proceeding, a district court may award spousal
maintenance if it finds that, in light of the marital standard of living, the maintenance -
seeking spouse “lacks sufficient property, includ ing marital property apportioned to the
spouse, to provide for [the] reasonable needs of the spouse” or “is unable to provide
adequate self-support . . . through appropriate employment.” Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd.
1 (2018); see Lyon v. Lyon , 439 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. 1989) (stating that an award of
spousal maintenance depends on a showing of need).
If the district court concludes that an award of spousal maintenance is appropriate,
it must consider all relevant statutory factors before setting the amount and duration of the
award. The factors include (1) the financial resources of the party see king maintenance
and that party’s ability to meet his or her needs independently; (2) the time required for the
party seeking maintenance to acquire sufficient educ ation or training to find appropriate
employment; (3) the marital standard of living; (4) the length of the marriage and, “in the

5
case of a homemaker, the length of the absence from employment and the extent to which
any education, skills, or experience ha ve become outmoded and earning capacity has
become permanently diminished”; (5) the loss of employment opportunities and benefits
foregone by the party seeking maintenance; (6) the age and health of the party seeking
maintenance; (7) the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his or
her own needs while meeting the needs of the spouse requesting maintenance; and (8) the
contribution of each party to the acquisition and preservation of the marital property and
the contribution of a spouse as a homemaker. Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2. “No single
factor is dispositive.” Maiers v. Maiers, 775 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Minn. App. 2009).
Husband contends on appeal that, because the district court did not determine the
parties’ net incomes, it did not properly evaluate his ability to pay the maintenance award.
When awarding spousal maintenance, the district court must consider “the ability of the
spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet needs while meeting those of the spouse
seeking mainten ance.” Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2(g). In effect, the district court
balances the maintenance-seeking spouse’s needs against the payor spouse’s ability to pay.
Maiers, 775 N.W.2d at 668. “In order to determine ability to pay, the court must make a
determination of the payor spouse’s net or take -home pay.” Kostelnik v. Kostelnik , 367
N.W.2d 665, 670 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. July 26, 1985). We have
reversed spousal -maintenance awards when, “based on an analysis of the obligor’s net
income, we concluded the amount of the award was unreasonably high.” Rask v. Rask ,
445 N.W.2d 849, 854 (Minn. App. 1989) (concluding that an award consuming 54% of the
obligor’s net income is unreasonably high).

6
Husband argues that the maintenance award of $2,700 per month is unreasonable
because it consumes nearly 70% of his net income, which he asserts, based on his paystubs,
is approximately $3,875. Using husband’s gross income, the district court determined that,
after paying his reasonable monthly expenses, husband has $2,823.44 left over each month
to pay the maintenance award. But husband’s income tax liability , which could
significantly affect the amount of income available to pay a spousal -maintenance award,
was not factored into the d etermination of husband’s reasonable monthly expenses .
Kostelnik, 367 N.W.2d at 670.
We sympathize with the district court’s struggles with an incomplete record. But
without factual finding s on both parties’ net incomes, we are unable to fully review the
reasonableness of the maintenance award. Id. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the
district court to reopen the record to calculate husband’s net income and to receive evidence
of wife’s net income, whether based on her imputed income or some oth er source, and to
recalculate maintenance, if appropriate . Because we reverse the award of spousal
maintenance, we do not reach the other related issues raised on appeal.
Reversed and remanded.