 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gold v. Gold9/21/2004
Curtis Gold appeals the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his permanent maintenance obligation, on the ground that his former wife, Marsha Gold, failed to make efforts to rehabilitate as required by the parties' dissolution judgment. Because the district court did not abuse discretion in concluding that Curtis Gold failed to prove a substantial change of circumstances making the original award of permanent maintenance unreasonable and unfair, we affirm. We decline, however, to consider Marsha Gold's request for appellate attorney fees until the receipt of a proper motion requesting those fees under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.
FACTS
Curtis and Marsha Gold were divorced in April 2001 after a 27-year marriage. The dissolution judgment contained a provision ordering Curtis Gold, who was employed full-time as an x-ray technician with a net monthly income of $2,985, to pay permanent maintenance of $1,000 monthly to Marsha Gold, who was unemployed and had not worked outside the home for 15 years. The district court concluded that permanent maintenance was mandated because it was not clear when or if Marsha Gold would be able to become employed, based on findings that she had a workers' compensation-related injury that resulted in a 25% permanent partial disability to her back, as well as asthma, depression, and insomnia, and that she was in need of a full hysterectomy. The district court concluded that Marsha Gold must rehabilitate herself by seeking counseling for her depression as well as vocationally, and she should, if appropriate, consider seeking disability social security benefits. The district court also ordered Curtis Gold to provide Marsha Gold with medical insurance coverage under 29 U.S.C. ยงยง 1161-69 (2000), the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), for 18 months after the judgment and then to pay the premiums on a private policy for her.
In November 2003, Curtis Gold moved for an order " mending . . . the Judgment . . . to modify the spousal maintenance obligations" to reduce maintenance to $500 for six months and then to terminate maintenance, arguing that his net monthly income had decreased and that Marsha Gold had failed to rehabilitate as required by the judgment. In response, Marsha Gold moved for an order increasing maintenance and ordering the payment of COBRA insurance on the ground that Curtis Gold's income had increased since the dissolution, that she still suffered from depression and back pain as substantiated by a doctor's note, and that she had no medical insurance because Curtis Gold had discontinued her from his insurance and did not pay the COBRA premium. Both parties also moved for attorney fees.
In December 2003, the district court denied both motions for maintenance modification, finding that Curtis Gold's income appeared to be approximately the same as at the time of the dissolution and concluding that Curtis Gold had not proved a change in circumstances warranting a change in the amount of maintenance. The district court ordered that Curtis Gold pay health insurance costs previously incurred by Marsha Gold, based on his admission that he had failed to provide the COBRA coverage and to follow the terms of the judgment concerning payment for additional insurance. The district court also found that it was possible that Curtis Gold's failure to pay health insurance premiums was part of the reason that Marsha Gold had not been able to seek employment compatible with her disability. The district court awarded Marsha Gold attorney fees.
A month later, Curtis Gold moved for amendment of the previous order, requesting that maintenance be reduced, that he pay Marsha Gold's
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|