Opinion
No. CX-96-2448.
Filed July 29, 1997.
Appeal from the District Court, Becker County, File No. F291131.
Charles A. Krekelberg, (for Appellant).
Dennis W. Hagstrom, Svingen, Athens, Russell Hagstrom, P.L.L.P., (for Respondent).
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Randall, Judge, and Schumacher, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Joan Marr argues the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for permanent spousal maintenance. We reverse and remand.
DECISION
District courts have broad discretion in establishing maintenance, and their determinations will not be set aside in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Erlandson v. Erlandson , 318 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Minn. 1982). "That discretion must be examined in light of the controlling statutory guidelines contained in Minn. Stat. § 518.552." Id. However, [e]ffective appellate review of the exercise of that discretion is possible 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.
Stich v. Stich , 435 N.W.2d 52, 53 (Minn. 1989).
A district court may award spousal maintenance if it finds the spouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to the spouse, to provide for reasonable needs of the spouse and is unable to provide adequate self-support, through appropriate employment, after considering the standard of living established during the marriage and all relevant circumstances. Lyon v. Lyon , 439 N.W.2d 18, 22 (Minn. 1989) (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 1). The maintenance order shall be in amounts and for periods of time as the district court deems just after considering all the relevant factors set out in Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd. 2 (1996). Although there are eight statutory factors, the issue is basically the financial needs of the recipient and her ability to meet those needs balanced against the financial condition of the payor. Erlandson , 318 N.W.2d at 39-40.
In this case, the district court determined appellant was not entitled to permanent maintenance because neither party has achieved the standard of living achieved during their marriage, and further, because the petitioner has sufficient education, training, and has had the use of rehabilitative maintenance for the last five years.
While we cannot say the district court's conclusion is incorrect, the record does not contain sufficient findings to support the determination that appellant has the ability to be self-supporting. There are no findings regarding what appellant could earn as an LPN, with or without five years of experience. In addition, the evidence in the record does not indicate that the maintenance paid to appellant for the past five years was intended to be rehabilitative maintenance. Finally, there are no findings regarding appellant's and respondent's respective financial conditions. Therefore, we reverse the district court's denial of appellant's motion for permanent maintenance and remand for consideration of the statutory factors and the necessary findings in such proceedings as the district court deems appropriate.