Cited by

justifies inferences adverse to the party who conceals or evades.”

To facilitate the equitable division of property during a dissolution proceeding, the parties to the proceeding “must make a full and accurate disclosure of their assets and liabilities.”

But “[o]rdinary fraud, in a dissolution context, does not require an affirmative misrepresentation or an intentional course of concealment because parties to a marriage dissolution have a duty to disclose all assets and liabilities completely and accurately.” Doering, d at 130 ().

The district court found that “the value of the Venmo account as of the date of valuation is not known, and the Court declines to assign a value.” Wife contends that “Husband had a duty to supply information to make a full and accurate disclosure of his assets,”

In a marital-dissolution proceeding, when parties fail to “make a full and accurate disclosure of their assets and liabilities,” this failure “justifies inferences adverse to the party who conceals or evades.” See Bollenbach v. Bollenbach , 14 (citing this aspect of Bollenbach), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

he property settlement could have been s ubject to payments over time or from the disposition of other assets such as [husband’s] retirement accounts.” Indeed, with respect to property settlements, “[p]ayments over a peri od of time are ordinarily favored, absent reasons warranting immediate payment.” Kennedy v. Kennedy , see Bollenbach v. Bollenbach , (ordering immediate payment of a property settlement because of a risk that the ex-spouse might squander assets).

The only published caselaw husband cites for this proposition is Bollenbach v. Bollenbach , which he quotes for its statement that the purpose of the dissipation statute is to prevent parties from “subvert[ing] the orderly processes of the c ourts by concealing, dissipating, or misusing assets .

We must affirm a district court’s decision concerning the division of marital property so long as it has an “acceptable b asis in fact and principle.”

Bollenbach v. Bollenbach , see also Doering v. Doering , -33 (Minn. App. 2001) (recognizing an affirmative duty to disclose even in the absence of a request in family proceedings), review denied (Minn. Sept.

1a (2016); see Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428, (“A party to a marriage subject to severance in divorce proceedings cannot be permitted to subvert the orderly proce sses of the courts by concealing, dissipating, or misusing his assets in anticipation of divorce so as to reduce the property available for division .

See, ( noting, in a 9 child-support dispute, that “we have stated that if a party is in exclusive possession of evidence and that party fails to produce the evidence, an unfavorable inference may be drawn about that party as to the relevant issue”); Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428, (stating that in dissolution proceedings, parties “must make a full and accurate disclosure of their assets and liabilities ” and failure to do so “justifies inferences adverse to the party who conceals o

In a marriage-dissolution action, parties have an affirmative duty to “make a full and accurate disclosure of their assets and liabilities.” Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428

Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 427

Parker, 285 *d at 83; see also Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428 , (stating that in dissolution proceedings, parties "must make a full and accurate disclosure of their assets and liabilities" and failure to do so "justifies inferences adverse to the party who conceals or evades.").

Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428

Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426

The reviewing court will not disturb the district court’s maintenance award if it has a “reasonable and acceptable basis in fact and principle.” (citing Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426 , ).

See Beede, d at 835 (noting trial court may use earning capacity to measure income if impracticable to determine actual income); see also Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428 , (stating failure to make full and accurate disclosure of assets and liabilities “justifies inferences adverse to the party who conceals or evades”).

1 (1992); Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 436

Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426

The award must not be disturbed if it has a “reasonable and acceptable basis in fact and principle.” (citing Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426-27 , ).

Additionally, if the child support determination has a “reasonable and acceptable basis in fact and in principle, [an appellate court] will and must affirm.” (citing Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418 , ).

Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428

The court has broad discretion in the division of property, Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426 , and will be overturned only upon an abuse of that discretion.

We must affirm the district court’s property distribution if the distribution “has an acceptable basis in fact and principle.” See Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. at 426, (a homestead lien payable in fifteen years was affirmed because it had an “acceptable basis in fact and principle”).

See also Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418 , (where the wife had ample resources at hand, the full burden of attorney fees could not be placed on the husband); (trial court erred in failing to award wife attorney fees where husband’s income was substantially higher and he was clearly m