Marriage of Stich v. Stich
In Re the Marriage of Lois v. STICH, Respondent, v. Godfrey N. STICH, Petitioner, Appellant
Opinion
*53 AMDAHL, Chief Justice.
Godfrey N. Stich obtained further review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court’s award of $200 per month as permanent spousal maintenance and $500 as attorney fees to Lois Stich.
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.
E.g., Erlandson v. Erlandson, 318 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Minn.1982). Effective 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.
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 to their separate expenses. Moreover, it made no specific finding with regard to Godfrey’s financial ability to provide maintenance. As these findings are insufficient to enable an appellate court 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 accordance with this decision. On remand, the trial court is authorized to conduct any necessary evidentiary hearing. Similarly, the trial court shall reconsider its award of attorney fees upon completion of the proceedings on remand.
Reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 8 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(reversing award of permanent spousal maintenance where the trial court failed to make specific findings as to the parties’ separate expenses and obligor’s ability to pay)
-
(reversing and remanding where district court made insufficient findings to demonstrate proper consideration of statutory requirements for spousal maintenance)
-
(reversing the district court’s spousal-maintenance decision based on insufficient findings and remanding the matter to the district court “for additional findings”)
-
(remanding maintenance award where district court made findings regarding parties’ income but failed to make findings as to their expenses or obligor’s ability to provide maintenance)
-
(reversing and remanding a maintenance award because it lacked adequate supporting findings of fact)
-
(remanding for further findings because “[e]ffective appellate review . . . is possible only when the [district] court has issued sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its consideration of all factors”)
-
(remanding maintenance issue when findings were inadequate)
Cited by 42 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- the Marriage of: David John Boritzke v. Emily Elizabeth Niles
- Justin Dean Schultz v. Analisa French Perkins
- the Marriage of: Dhimble Ali v. Fahria Mohamed
- the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev
- the Marriage of: Bridget Kathleen Corrigan v. Daniel Thomas Schmidt
- In re the Welfare of the Children of: S. M. T. and D. W. T., Parents.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.