 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reichert v. Reichert2/6/2001
Appellant challenges the district court's order denying his motion to reduce or terminate his maintenance obligation. On appeal, he argues that the district court (1) ignored his demonstration of substantially changed circumstances, rendering his existing maintenance obligation unreasonable and unfair; (2) unjustly rewarded respondent for dissipating her marital property settlement; and (3) improperly used his pension payments to calculate his income for maintenance purposes. Because we find that appellant has not demonstrated substantially changed circumstances that make the original award unfair and unreasonable and there is no evidence that respondent dissipated her marital property settlement in bad faith or that the district court improperly used his pension payments to calculate his income, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Joseph Reichert and respondent Cecilia Reichert were married for 31 years. The marriage was dissolved pursuant to a judgment and decree on July 27, 1990.
At the time of the dissolution, appellant earned a gross annual income of $63,420 as an employee of 3M, with a monthly net income of $3,320.22. His monthly expenses were $1,400 per month. Respondent was a homemaker during the marriage and was not employed outside the home at the time of the dissolution. Her monthly expenses were calculated to be between $1,675 and $1,700 per month.
Each party received approximately one-half of the marital estate. Respondent received $1,600 per month as permanent spousal maintenance. She also received a 50% interest in appellant's pension. At the time of the entry of the decree, the accrued benefit to respondent would have been $1,583.15 per month if she opted to begin payments on February 1, 1998. But respondent chose to begin drawing payments from the pension plan in 1990 at age 52, resulting in a monthly payment of approximately $635. Over the years, respondent has used a portion of her settlement to provide gifts to the parties' children and grandchildren.
Appellant retired from 3M on December 31, 1996, and received a severance package equal to 60 additional weeks' salary. At retirement, appellant's annual gross salary was $98,421. Appellant has remarried, and his second wife is employed full-time. In 1998, appellant unsuccessfully sought to have his maintenance obligation terminated. Seven months after the May 1999 denial of his motion for amended findings in that proceeding, he initiated this proceeding, again seeking to reduce or terminate his maintenance obligation.
On May 16, 2000, the district court denied appellant's motion and awarded respondent attorney fees. In its calculations of appellant's income, the district court acknowledged that " here have been substantial changes since entry of the Judgment and Decree." Although appellant's gross income declined due to his retirement, his monthly net income has actually increased by 9%. The most significant change is in appellant's monthly living expenses which have increased 72%, from $1,400 to $2,409.33. Respondent is not employed outside the home. The district court found that her gross monthly income has increased by $735.42 due to the addition of pension income. Respondent's expenses have remained unchanged.
The district court felt that appellant ought to be responsible for shouldering the increased expenses created by his remarriage. Moreover, the district court noted that appellant seemed to be trying to lower his income by arguing that certain assets belonged to his second wife. This appeal follows.
DECISION
I.
Appellant contends that the district court improperly used the marital portion of his pension b
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|