Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
66 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen (minnctapp, 2009-07-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen (4×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
"If the change was made in good faith, then the obligee should share in the hardship as if the parties had remained together." Id. at 165 (citing Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982)). "[W]hen an obligee raises a colorable claim of bad faith, an obligor must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a decision to retire early was not primarily influenced by a specific intent to decrease or terminate maintenance...." Id.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius
Minn. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
In 1982 the Minnesota Supreme Court extended this holding to the modification of decrees for child support and spousal maintenance, stating that when an obligor’s income changed as a result of good-faith actions, “the child and the separated spouse should share in the hardship as they would have had the family remained together.” Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982); see also Beede v. Law, 400 N.W.2d 831, 835 (Minn.App.1987) (remanding a district court’s modification of child support, which was based on a finding of earning capacity, because the court failed to find that…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Putz v. Putz (2×)
Minn. · 2002 · confidence medium
We noted that, in cases involving an obligor's ability to comply with a support order for contempt purposes, "there is no defense if the party directed to pay `has not made a reasonable effort by means of his own selection to conform to an order well within his inherent but unexercised capacities.'" Id. at 719-20 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Fulmer v. Fulmer (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 719 (Minn.1982); see also Prange v. Prange, 437 N.W.2d 69, 70 (Minn.App.1989) (noting trial courts may also modify stipulated maintenance provisions if parties' circumstances have materially changed), review denied (Minn. May 12, 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wardwell v. Clapp
Vt. · 1998 · confidence medium
Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn. 1982) (where new business startup may have resulted in a temporary reduction in income, court should consider, among other alternatives, reduction or deferral of alimony).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Little v. Little
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
However, other jurisdictions have reached this issue, finding that voluntary changes in employment or occupation are reasonable if made in “good faith.” See In re Marriage of Horn, 272 Ill.App.3d 472 , 209 Ill.Dec. 130 , 650 N.E.2d 1103, 1106 (1995); Wolcott, 735 P.2d at 327; Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982); Schuler v. Schuler, 382 Mass. 366 , 416 N.E.2d 197, 203 (1981); Fogel v. Fogel, 184 Neb. 425 , 168 N.W.2d 275, 277 (1969); Thom as v. Thomas, 281 Ala. 397 , 203 So.2d 118, 123 (1967); Lambert v. Lambert, 66 Wash.2d 503 , 403 P.2d 664, 668 (1965); Nelson v. Nelson, 2…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gilbertson v. Graff
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Marriage of Richards
Minn. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lowery v. Lowery
Vt. · 1991 · confidence medium
See Johnson v. Johnson, 185 Conn. 573, 577 , 441 A.2d 578, 579 (1981) (court could make three-month reduction in defendant’s alimony and support obligation); Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn. 1982) (where new business startup may have resulted in a temporary reduction in income, court should consider, among other alternatives, reduction or deferral of alimony).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Darcy v. Darcy (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 719-20 (Minn.1982) (quoting Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 176 , 156 N.W.2d 212, 217 (1968)) (other citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Anderson v. Anderson
Minn. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 719-720 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Rohrman v. Moore
Minn. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
Goff v. Goff, 388 N.W.2d 28, 30 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), citing Gies- *721 ner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 719-20 (Minn.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of McNeill v. McNeill (2×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Modification of Support Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 permits modification of a decree with respect to child support “upon a showing of ⅜ ⅜ * substantially increased or decreased earnings of a party * * * which makes the terms unreasonable and unfair.” A modification is not proper if the support obligor “has not made a reasonable effort by means of his own selection to conform to an order well within his inherent but unex-ercised capacities.” Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 719-20 (Minn.1982) (quoting Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 176 , 156 N.W.2d 212, 217 (1968)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Hedburg v. Hedburg
Minn. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Quaid v. Quaid
Minn. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beede v. Law
Minn. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Resch v. Resch, 381 N.W.2d 460, 462 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (“proper to look beyond an obligor’s earnings to his earning *836 capacity, and to disregard any voluntary inability to pay”); Quick v. Quick, 381 N.W.2d 5, 9 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (self-employed person voluntarily incurred expenses to expand his business); Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982) (even voluntary loss of income is justified when in good faith).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Goff v. Goff
Minn. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
The Minnesota Supreme Court has analogized this situation to contempt cases, applying the rule that there is no defense if the obligor: “has not made a reasonable effort by means of his own selection to conform to an order well within his inherent but unexercised capacities.” Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 719-20 (Minn.1982) (quoting Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 176 , 156 N.W.2d 212, 217 (1968)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Savoren v. Savoren
Minn. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Young
Minn. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
It is true that a post-dissolution child must share in the hardship as though the family had remained together, Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Young
Minn. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
It is true that a post-dissolution child must share in the hardship as though the family had remained together, Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn. 1982).
discussed Cited "see" Marriage of Lee v. Lee
Minn. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 719-20 (Minn.1982) (“Inasmuch as the trial court did not evaluate appellant’s subjective intent in [leaving his old job and] starting a new business, we must remand the matter for further proceedings, wherein that subjective intent will be considered”).
cited Cited "see" Marriage of Herrley v. Herrley
Minn. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982); Sommer v. Sommer, 108 Wis.2d 586 , 323 N.W.2d 144, 146 (Ct.App.1982).
discussed Cited "see" Marriage of Bruner v. Bruner
Minn. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982) (holding that when a good faith career change results in decreased earnings, children and the separated spouse should share in the hardship as they would had the family remained together).
cited Cited "see" In Re the Marriage of Larson
Minn. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 720 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited "see" Marriage of McClintock v. Larson
Minn. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Giesner v. Giesner, 319 N.W.2d 718, 719-720 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited "see, e.g." In Re the Marriage of Ward
Colo. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Geisner v. Geisner, 319 N.W.2d 718 (Minn.1982) (deferral of maintenance and support is within discretion of trial court in appropriate cases).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jean Katherine GIESNER, Petitioner, Respondent,
v.
Frederick Lawrence GIESNER, Appellant
81-976.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
May 28, 1982.
319 N.W.2d 718
Peter H. Watson & Associates, Minneapolis, for appellant., J. Mark Catron, St. Paul, for respondent.
Kelley.
Cited by 38 opinions  |  Published
KELLEY, Justice.

Appellant, Frederick Lawrence Giesner, appeals from an order of the district court refusing to modify awards of spousal maintenance and support by temporarily abating them. We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

The parties were divorced in 1974. By the judgment, appellant was to pay alimony and child support totaling $300 per month. In September of 1980, respondent had custody of one minor child at home. She was unemployed, received rent subsidy, food stamps, medical assistance and aid for dependent children. She had no appreciable property. During the time following the divorce, appellant had earned between $18,-000 and $54,000 per year. He had substantial property including cash, personal property and a significant equity in a home.

At all times prior to September 1980, appellant was current on maintenance and support payments. In April of 1980, appellant had been involuntarily terminated from his job but received his salary through August of 1980. In January 1981, the Ramsey County District Court modified the spousal maintenance and support requirements of the decree by doubling them. Although the record is not fully developed, it does indicate that appellant, following his job termination in April 1980, made unsuccessful attempts to obtain work in his field. Being unsuccessful, he thereafter determined to commence his own business. In doing so, he had to use substantially all of his assets.

Appellant moved the trial court for an order to suspend child support and spousal maintenance payments for a period of 8 to 12 months due to his inability to pay. At the expiration of that time, he expected the new business venture to start to show a profit and, presumably, he could resume payments. The referee determined that appellant’s “legal obligation is to secure immediate employment that will provide first for his basic necessities and secondly produce sufficient income for him to meet his child support and maintenance obligations.” The trial court confirmed the referee’s decision.

Minn.Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 (1980) permits modification of a decree with respect to maintenance or support “upon a showing of substantially increased or decreased earnings of a party * * * which makes the terms unreasonable and unfair.” We have discussed the significance of volition as it relates to a party’s circumstances in the related context of ability to comply with an order for contempt purposes. Our rule is that there is no defense if the party directed to pay “has not made a reasonable effort by means of his own selection to conform to an order well within his inherent but unex-[*720] ercised capacities.” Hopp v. Hopp, 279 Minn. 170, 176, 156 N.W.2d 212, 217 (1968); State v. Fuerst, 283 Minn. 391, 168 N.W.2d 1 (1969).

We believe that a similar test should apply where an individual seeks modification of a decree on the ground that a career change has resulted in decreased earnings. If the change was made in good faith, the child and the separated spouse should share in the hardship as they would have had the family remained together. The same is true as to benefits. Rutledge v. Rutledge, 96 Mich.App. 621, 293 N.W.2d 651 (1980). Inasmuch as the trial court did not evaluate appellant’s subjective intent in starting a new business, we must remand the matter for further proceedings, wherein that subjective intent will be considered along with the other factors listed in Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 (1980). If the trial court finds that the entry into the new business by the appellant was made in good faith so that appellant might meet his obligations, including his support and maintenance obligations, the court may then fashion a modification that will reflect equities for the parties and the child. In so doing, the court might consider alternatives which would include reduction in amount, deferral or, if the situation demands it, abatement.

Respondent has petitioned this court to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in accordance with Minn.Stat. § 563.01, subd. 8 (1980). The petition is granted to the limited extent of the authorization of the payment of the reasonable expenses incurred in the reproduction of her appellate briefs.

Reversed and remanded.