In Minnesota, the family court will grant a divorce in certain cases without the parties coming to court to appear in person. If there are no minor children involved, the court will sign off on a stipulated decree (agreement signed by both parties) submitted by mail if the reviewing judge is satisfied that the stipulated decree appears to be fair to both parties. If there are minor children involved, the court may still sign off on a mailed stipulation if both parents are represented by counsel, and if the court is satisfied that the stipulation appears to be consistent with the child’s best interests and fair to both parties.

If there are minor children involved and one or both parties has no attorney, the court will require one of the parties to appear in person. Similarly, if the court receives a stipulated decree in the mail and is not satisfied that it is fair to both parties, or is concerned that it is not consistent with the best interests of a minor child, the court will require one or both parties to personally appear.

In most cases, the family court will find that the parties’ agreed-upon terms are, in fact, fair to both parties and (if a minor child is involved) consistent with the child’s best interests.

When someone getting divorced has a retirement benefit or retirement income, their spouse may want to receive part of it as alimony. However, at the time of the divorce, the value of the pension interest is typically divided between the parties as part of the property settlement in the divorce. So an issue may arise as to whether to characterize the pension value as property or as income.

Take, for instance, a case where the husband gets the pension and, in consideration of that, the wife get the house. In that instance, the pension is part of the PROPERTY settlement, and is not considered income. If the wife seeks alimony from the husband, his money from the pension should not be factored into the determination of alimony. It would not be fair for him to pay alimony from his share of the property settlement when he will not, in turn, receive any of the equity in the home.

On the other hand, if the pension is NOT divided between the parties, for instance, because the husband is already receiving his pension payments at the time of the divorce, then the pension is INCOME, rather than property. Since the value of the pension is not part of the property settlement, the money received from the pension plan MAY be considered in the determination of alimony (also known as spousal maintenance).

When someone wants to start a divorce proceeding, they need to formally serve process upon the other party. The divorce proceeding does not start because the couple has separated or because a court file has been opened. When the responding party receives the divorce petition from the initiating party, the divorce is officially pending.

Formal service of process is accomplished simply by handing the documents (Summons and Petition) to the responding party. It must be performed by an individual, age 18 or over, who is not a party to the proceeding. A spouse cannot serve their own spouse with the divorce papers. Typically, a courier, neighbor or family member serves the documents; these days, the involvement of a sheriff’s deputy for this kind of service is rare.

Alternatively, the responding spouse may admit or acknowledge service. The Admission of Service, which must be in writing, makes it unnecessary to involve a third party. Oftentimes, the initiating party will mail the documents to the responding party with a blank Admission of Service for the responding party to sign and return in the mail.

When a wife and husband no longer want to be married, it can be assumed that they no longer want to live together. However, the economic reality is that maintaining two households is substantially more burdensome than maintaining one. In many instances, separated couples remain living together, against the will of one of the parties. That is to say, one spouse (or both) wants to stay in the house, and get the other spouse to move out. But the “unwelcome” spouse stands their ground, and refuses to move out.

Neither party can exclude the other from the house without a court order. If the issue comes before the family court, the judge is likely to work out an arrangement whereby the couple is not living together. The family court judge will want to avoid the potential that the couple’s “peaceful coexistence” will deteriorate into something less peaceful, particularly if children are involved.

But the court will also balance the interests of safety and diffusing tension against the economic considerations. Those considerations include avoiding the burden of maintaining two households, if at all possible, particularly if the house must be sold. In many cases, long-term necessity requires selling the marital home so that both spouses can downgrade to something more affordable.