## Facts

- Howard F. Karon and Frima M. Karon married in 1952; dissolution proceedings began in 1979.
- In 1981, the parties executed a stipulation incorporated into the dissolution judgment and decree.
- The decree awarded Frima temporary spousal maintenance for a 10-year term under a scheduled, declining payment structure.
- The stipulation stated the parties waived any right to maintenance except as provided and that the court was divested of jurisdiction to alter the maintenance arrangement.
- Before the 10-year term expired, Frima moved to increase and extend maintenance based on changed circumstances.
- A referee and the district court concluded they had authority to modify maintenance and ordered an increased, permanent award, including retroactive adjustment; an amended judgment was entered in 1987.
- The court of appeals affirmed; Howard sought further review.

## Issues

1. Whether divorcing parties may validly waive statutory rights to seek future modification of spousal maintenance.
2. Whether a decree incorporating an express waiver and an express divestiture of jurisdiction bars later modification of maintenance under Minn. Stat. § 518.64.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the district court and the court of appeals.
- The court held the waiver and jurisdiction-divesting provisions in the stipulated decree were valid and enforceable.
- The district court therefore lacked authority to modify the maintenance award contrary to the decree’s terms.
- The Supreme Court reinstated the original dissolution judgment and decree.

## Legal Principles

- A dissolution stipulation approved by the court and incorporated into the decree is treated as a binding agreement, enforceable absent recognized grounds to set aside the judgment or agreement (e.g., fraud).
- Parties may, by clear written agreement, waive future modification of the amount or duration of spousal maintenance, and the decree may divest the court of continuing jurisdiction over maintenance.
- Statutory authority to modify maintenance upon changed circumstances operates as a default rule and does not override an express, court-approved waiver and divestiture of jurisdiction.
- Judicial scrutiny of fairness and adequacy occurs at the time the court decides whether to accept and incorporate the stipulation; after acceptance, the court is bound by the decree’s jurisdictional limitation.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a stipulated maintenance arrangement that expressly waived future modification and divested the court of jurisdiction, holding that such provisions bar later modification of maintenance under the general modification statute and requiring reinstatement of the original decree.


Karon v. Karon, 435 N.W.2d 501 (Minn. 1989)