In re the Marriage of: Marcia A. Hammond, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1623

In re the Marriage of: Marcia A. Hammond, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Jeffrey Lyle Buchanan,
Appellant.

Filed October 21, 2019
Reversed and remanded
Connolly, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-000255601

Rebecca A. Chaffee, Best & Flanagan, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Amy D. Joyce, Samuel M. Johnson, Skolnick & Joyce, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Johnson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant, an obligor spous e, challenges the denial of his motion to terminate his
maintenance obligation, arguing that the district court failed to make adequate findings of

2
fact. Because we a gree, we reverse and remand for further findings; being unable to
adequately review the district court’s opinion, we neither make nor imply any decision as
to its merits.
FACTS
Appellant Jeffrey Buchanan and respondent Marcia Hammond were married from
1989 to 2001. Their only child, born in 1991, is now 28. During the marriage , the source
of the parties’ income was appellant’s business, which was valued at $1,350,000 at the time
of dissolution. One-third of this amount, $450,000 was found to be appellant’s nonmarital
property; the remaining $900,000 was divided between the parties.
The dissolution judgment also provided that appe llant would pay respondent
$12,200 monthly in permanent spousal maintenance and $1,570 in child support, as well
as the child’s private-school tuition, books and fees, and would deposit $7,000 annually for
the child’s post-secondary education, and would maintain life insurance to secure these
payments. Respondent was also awarded the parties ’ $1,075,000 home, in which she had
equity of over $400,000.
In 2016, appellant sold his business and became a consultant to it at an annual salary
of $120,000; his salary in 2015 had been $709,031 . He was 68 when he retired in
December 2017.
In July 2017, appellant moved to terminate or modify his spousal -maintenance
obligation. At the parties’ request, the di strict court addressed whether a court could
consider “income generated from marital property, or income generated from non -marital
property, when considering what income is available for maintenance” and determined that

3
appellant’s proceeds from the sale of his business could be considered as income for
maintenance purposes.
Appellant’s motion to terminate or modify spousal maintenance was denied. He
challenges the denial, arguing that the district court’s findings were insufficient and were
not supported by the evidence.1
D E C I S I O N
Standard of Review
We have stated on numerous occasions that the standard
of review on appeal from a trial court’s determination of
maintenance is whether that court abused the broad discretion
accorded it. Effective appellate review of the exercise of that
discretion is po ssible only when the trial court has issued
sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its
consideration of all factors relevant to an award of permanent
spousal maintenance.
While the court of appeals acknowledged that the
findings could have been more complete, it nevertheless
concluded that those findings were not clearly erroneous and
that the statutory requirements were considered. We disagree.
The trial court did make findings with regard to the parties’
income, but made no findings as t o their separate expenses.
Moreover, it made no specific findings with regard to [the
obligor’s] financial ability to provide maintenance. As these
findings are insufficient to determine whether the trial court
properly considered the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 518.552
(1986), the matter is remanded to the trial court for additional
findings in accord with this decision.

1 Respondent argues that appellant’s failure to move for amended findings precludes him
from arguing that the findings were incomplete. But the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the findings may be challenged whether or not the party challenging them has
moved to amend them . Roberson v. Roberson , 206 N.W.2d 347, 348 (Minn. 1973)
(holding that failure to move for amended findings “cannot bar a challenge on appeal that
the record does not reveal with sufficient clarity the factual basis supporting the trial court’s
decision.”).

4
Stich v. Stich , 435 N.W.2d 52, 53 (Mi nn. 1989) (citation omitted). The same findings
would be required for a motion to modify maintenance. See, e.g., Dougherty v. Dougherty,
443 N.W.2d 193, 194 (Minn. App. 1989).
Appellant argues that the district court “failed to make necessary factual findings
about [r]espondent’s income, the reasonableness of [her] purported expenses, and the effect
of the increase in [a]ppellant’s standard of living that accompanied the growth of his own
assets in the years following the divorce.” We agree.
As to respondent’s income, the district court found only that she receives monthly
maintenance of $15,632; as to her expenses, it found that, because she spends $11,533
monthly before taxes and “paid about $4,000 a month in taxes in 2017,” her monthly
expenses are $15,533 . The district court then concluded that respondent needs “the
maintenance she is now receiving for her reasonable budget.” But the district court made
no findings as to the reasonableness of the individual items in respondent’s budget, other
than to say that respondent’s money manager “presented credible evidence” as to the
amount she spe nds. A district court abuses its discretion regarding maintenance if its
findings of fact are unsupported by the record. Dobrin v. Dobrin, 569 N.W.2d 199, 202
(Minn. 1997). W e cannot determine whether the conclusion that appellant’s $15,533
budget is reasonable is an abuse of discretion or is supported by the record.
For example , i n her deposition, respondent acknowledged that about “ 25 to 30
percent” of her $900 monthly food budget is for her adult son, that she contributes to his
clothes and his a cupuncture, and that these expenses “might be in the [$500]
miscellaneous” category of her budget . Respondent also testified that her acupuncture

5
expense was high because 25 to 30% of it was for her son. Amounts spent on an adult
child cannot be considered in determining an obligee spouse’s need for maintenance. Reif
v. Reif, 410 N.W.2d 414, 416 (Minn. App. 1987).2 The budget the district court determined
to be reasonable seems to include significant expenditure for an adult child. Appellant also
challenges amounts respondent spent on storage fees, clothing, gifts, and travel. Absent
particularized findings on individual expenses to support the district court’s determination
that respondent’s budget is reasonable, we cannot conclude that the determination is not an
abuse of discretion.
Absent findings as to respondent’s sources of income other than her spousal -
maintenance payments, the reasonableness of respondent’s expenses , and appellant’s
increased expenses since the divorce, this court cannot ade quately review the district
court’s decision not to modify the spousal-maintenance award.
Reversed and remanded.

2 At the hearing, the district court told respondent that “maintenance is about supporting
you, not about supporting your children, even if you choose to support them. . . . [I]f there’s
evidence in there that . . . your budget includes money [spent] on you r kids, that might be
something I would trim.”