Despite lacking clear definition, the term “fake news” now frequently appears in political discourse. Without objective, universally-accepted criteria, it can be hard for consumers to discern what the term “fake news” means, other than to broadly, indiscriminately accept the proposition that the news is “fake” because the speaker said so.

Understanding this dilemma (some call this ‘circular reasoning’) may help the reader better understand the frustration felt by a divorced Husband who recently tried asking the court to revisit his spousal maintenance obligation to his ex-Wife, but was summarily denied because of the wording of the parties’ divorce decree.

In a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, a Husband asked the court to revisit his maintenance obligation, after the divorce decree was modified to award Wife custody of the parties’ children. After getting custody of the parties’ children, Wife now became eligible for child support payments from Husband; though Wife was already receiving spousal maintenance from Husband. Based on the changed circumstances, Husband believed his spousal maintenance obligation to Wife should be revisited. The court disagreed.

In its denial, the court correctly identified that Husband and Wife, as part of their divorce, agreed to never, ever revisit Husband’s obligation to pay Wife spousal maintenance. To make this prohibition ‘ironclad’, Husband and Wife included language in their divorce agreement, called a ‘Karon Waiver’, which instructed the Court to never allow either party to come back and change the spousal maintenance obligation.

A bit about Karon Waivers. Karon Waivers are commonly negotiated into divorce agreements, and Courts will accord them the same degree of sanctity as a contract. Pooley v. Pooley, 979 N.W.2d 867, 873 (Minn. 2022).

To determine whether a Karon Waiver exists, Courts will look to the elements identified in a Minnesota Supreme Court case called Butt v. Schmidt, which decided whether spouses actually had an agreement to waive their rights to modify maintenance. 747 N.W.2d 566, 573 (Minn. 2008). The ‘Butt’ elements are:

  • written acknowledgment that the parties waive rights to modify maintenance;
  • language that the Court is prohibited from ever considering the issue of maintenance;
  • the spouses’ agreement must be part of a divorce decree
  • the court must acknowledge that:
    • the agreement is fair and equitable,
    • is supported by consideration that is described by the court,
    • there’s been full disclosure of each party’s financial circumstances.

If a court finds that these elements exist, then the Karon Waiver applies, and no one can later ask the court to reconsider maintenance.

Husband’s challenge was that a Karon Waiver, never existed, because the court – when it granted the parties’ divorce – never identified what ‘consideration’ (see item 4(ii) above) existed at the time of the parties’ agreement.

A bit about ‘consideration’. ‘Consideration’ basically means what someone ‘gets’ in return for ‘giving something up’ when they enter into a contract. In his challenge to the Karon Waiver, Husband argued that the court didn’t explain what ‘consideration’ was given when the court accepted the parties’ Karon Waiver at the time of the divorce. In other words, Husband didn’t think the court did its homework in explaining what the parties were ‘getting’ in exchange for ‘giving up’ their right to seek modification of the spousal maintenance award in the future. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Husband’s argument.

In rejecting Husband’s argument, the Court of Appeals looked at the parties’ divorce decree and was satisfied that the ‘consideration’ required by the Butts decision, existed. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found the following language in the parties’ divorce agreement satisfactorily addressed the ‘consideration’ element:

  • the agreement contained an affirmation that each party disclosed all of his or her assets;
  • it described those assets in detail;
  • the court included language that it had “reviewed [the parties’] agreement, found it to be supported by sufficient consideration, and found it to be fair and equitable

The Court of Appeals saw no reason to look for anything more specific than this language above, in identifying ‘consideration’.

If defining ‘consideration’ as a declaration of the existence of ‘consideration’ seems a bit like saying “news is fake, because the news is fake’, you may agree with Husband. It’s not enough to call it ‘consideration’ without describing what that ‘consideration’ actually is.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals was satisfied that the law doesn’t require anything more than that, in identifying and describing consideration. So, be cautious when contemplating a future challenge to a Karon Waiver for want of consideration.

Spouses entering into divorce agreements that contain a Karon Waivers or those with questions about spousal maintenance and how it can be affected by a Karon Waiver should seek legal advice. Please contact us at Beyer & Simonson if you ever have questions about these, and other issues related to a divorce.


Meet Tim Simonson

Tim has been practicing for more than twenty (20) years now, He's handled divorce, child support, child custody, third party and grandparent rights, domestic abuse, parenting time, and many other areas of family law. He always enjoys the chance to meet people and see whether he can help find solutions to their legal problems.


Contact Beyer & Simonson

If you are facing divorce and any of the divorce-related issues such as spousal maintenance, child support, child custody, property division, or domestic abuse matters, you need our experienced Minneapolis divorce attorneys to help you. Contact Beyer & Simonson in Edina, Minnesota today at (952) 303-6007.

Latest Posts related to Courts