may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In Re the Marriage of:
John P. Mattson, petitioner,
Eleanor L. Mattson,
Filed December 22, 1998
Pennington County District Court
File No. FX-93-164
Jeffrey W. Hane, Brink, Sobolik, Severson, Malm & Albrecht, P.A., P.O. Box 790, Hallock, MN 55728 (for respondent)
Shirley A. Dvorak, Moosburger, Dvorak and Carter, P.L.L.P, 311 South Fourth Street, Suite 101, Grand Forks, MN 58201 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Shumaker, Judge.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to make a four and one-half year temporary maintenance arrangement permanent but acknowledges the court first needed to find a substantial change in circumstances that rendered the original decree unreasonable and unfair. The court found no such change in circumstances and we affirm.
A 1994 divorce judgment, based on a stipulation of the parties, provides that appellant would receive $500 per month spousal maintenance for four and one-half years and she would "make her best efforts * * * to get an education to provide the necessary income for her or * * * obtain employment without the education that will provide her with an appropriate level of income." Respondent was to pay for tuition and books if appellant decided to attend school.
In the documents accompanying her October 1997 motion, appellant portrayed her gross income from all sources as derived principally from working as a L.P.N. at the V.A. Hospital, where she earned approximately $26,000 to $27,000 a year. But appellant also had yearly investment income of approximately $20,000 from marital assets awarded in the divorce. Respondent was and continues to be publisher of the Thief River Falls Times.
We must uphold the trial court's findings of fact with regard to maintenance determinations unless they are "clearly erroneous." Gessner v. Gessner, 487 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Minn. App. 1992). "Clearly erroneous means manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence as a whole or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole." Kornberg v. Kornberg, 525 N.W.2d 14, 19 (Minn. App. 1994) (citation omitted), aff'd, 542 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 1996).
Appellant contends the trial court erred in finding she had insufficiently documented an ankle injury, so that there was no substantial change in circumstances due to health problems. Appellant misconstrues what the court found insufficiently documented. The court did not question the existence of appellant's ankle injury but observed the lack of documentation showing any connection between the injury and her employability. It also found unsubstantiated and speculative her claim of a substantial change in circumstances due to second-hand smoke in the workplace that would force her to quit. The trial court's findings with regard to these claims are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous.
Appellant asserts that she failed to rehabilitate herself "to the level of income that would allow her to enjoy the standard of living she enjoyed before her divorce." In other words, appellant suggests that she needs income, to cover her appropriate expenditures, which exceeds what she has been able to produce. But the question in this modification proceeding regards a change in circumstances, which means a change in appellant's circumstances for purposes of her standard-of-living argument. And appellant has not shown that her need for income, to cover her reasonable expenses, has changed since her needs were considered in 1994. The evidence supports a trial court finding that appellant has been successful in producing income that "sufficiently provides for her needs as contemplated by the stipulation agreement." Appellant also contended that respondent's income increased, but she provided the trial court with no evidence to substantiate this claim.
Respondent, in his notice of review, argues the trial court erred in failing to award attorney fees. We review a court's determination of attorney fees under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Solon v. Solon, 255 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Minn. 1977). Respondent alleged appellant should pay his fees because she had misstated her income and ability to work in the papers accompanying her motion. But the misinformation did not mislead respondent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent's request.
Both parties ask for attorney fees on appeal. Considering the parties' financial circumstances and their positions taken in this case, we decline to award fees to either party.
 The judgment provision on maintenance provides that the trial court "reserved jurisdiction on this issue," but this phrase was only in reference to the question of whether the temporary award should "continue." Appellant seeks an unconditional permanent award and does not dispute that this is a modification proceeding, not merely a review of her maintenance entitlement.