## Facts

- Jean Kucera (wife) and Robert Kucera (husband), an attorney and state legislator, married in 1961.
- They had one child, Maureen Ann, born in December 1963.
- The marriage lasted about four years, but the parties lived together for less than one year total.
- The wife had a high school education and prior employment history, including work as a receptionist in the governor’s office.
- In the divorce decree, the trial court granted an absolute divorce to both parties.
- The trial court awarded the wife alimony of $200 per month for three years and ordered the husband to pay child support of $100 per month until the child turned 21, married, or became self-supporting.
- The decree did not include a property settlement in the wife’s favor and did not secure child support from the husband’s estate in the event of his death.
- The wife appealed only the economic provisions of the decree, not the grounds for divorce.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by limiting alimony to $200 per month for three years rather than awarding longer or indefinite maintenance.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting child support at $100 per month and by declining to secure support from the husband’s estate if he died during the child’s minority.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to award a property settlement to the wife.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decree in full.
- The court held that divorce statutes confer broad discretion on trial courts in setting alimony, child support, and property dispositions.
- The court declined to disturb fact findings based on conflicting evidence absent a showing that the findings were manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence as a whole.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the amount or duration of alimony, the amount of child support, the lack of estate security for support, or the absence of a property award to the wife.
- The court noted that child support remains subject to later modification upon a change in conditions.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad statutory discretion to determine alimony, child support, and property division in divorce, subject to appellate review only for abuse of discretion.
- Appellate courts do not reweigh conflicting evidence; factual findings will be upheld unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the record as a whole.
- Alimony determinations must be “just and reasonable” under the governing statute and may be time-limited when supported by the circumstances.
- Child support orders are subject to later modification based on changed conditions, reducing the need for appellate recalculation absent clear error.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the divorce decree’s alimony, child support, and property provisions, holding that the trial judge acted within the broad discretion granted in domestic-relations matters and that child support could be revisited later upon a change in circumstances.


Kucera v. Kucera, 275 Minn. 252, 146 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. 1966)