Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 175 N.W.2d 148.
-
Marriage of Nash v. Nash
388 N.W.2d 777
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428-34 , -58 (1970).
- Marriage of Krogstad v. Krogstad 388 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Marriage of Krogstad v. Krogstad
388 N.W.2d 376
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
If the child support determination has a “reasonable and acceptable basis in fact and principle, this court will and must affirm.” Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418
- Marriage of Smolecki v. Smolecki 386 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Marriage of Smolecki v. Smolecki
386 N.W.2d 846
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The lower court will be affirmed “if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though we might have made a different disposition of the problem.” (quoting Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426-27 , ).
- Marriage of Doering v. Doering 385 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Marriage of Kenville v. Kenville 385 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Marriage of Doering v. Doering
385 N.W.2d 387
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A reviewing court must affirm a property distribution that has an “acceptable basis in fact and principle even though we might have made a different disposition of the problem.” (quoting Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426-27 , ).
-
Marriage of Kenville v. Kenville
385 N.W.2d 398
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418 , the supreme court stated: This court, when called upon to review the exercise of trial court discretion in a case such as this, will and must affirm the decision of the trial court if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though we might have reached a different disposition of
- Marriage of Catania v. Catania 385 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Marriage of Catania v. Catania
385 N.W.2d 28
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426
- Marriage Of: Thomas v. Thomas 383 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Marriage Of: Thomas v. Thomas
383 N.W.2d 727
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rohling, d at 522 (quoting Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426-27 , ).
- Marriage of Griepp v. Griepp 381 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Marriage of Griepp v. Griepp
381 N.W.2d 865
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428
- Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling 379 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1986
-
Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling
379 N.W.2d 519
Minn. 1986
See Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428 , (discussing the dissipation of marital property).
- Marriage of Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 379 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Rosenberg v. Rosenberg
379 N.W.2d 580
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 427
- Marriage of Moon v. Moon 378 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Moon v. Moon
378 N.W.2d 49
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426-27
- Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy
376 N.W.2d 702
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 438-39 , (immediate payment ordered because there was a risk that ex-spouse might squander assets).
- Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Sefkow v. Sefkow
372 N.W.2d 37
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418
- Redding v. Redding 372 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Redding v. Redding
372 N.W.2d 31
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 442-43
- Marriage of Esposito v. Esposito 371 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Esposito v. Esposito
371 N.W.2d 608
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426
- Marriage of Riley v. Riley 369 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Riley v. Riley
369 N.W.2d 40
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
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 discretion.
- Marriage of Ronay v. Ronay 369 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Ronay v. Ronay
369 N.W.2d 6
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Dubois at 507 ; Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426-27
- Marriage of Otte v. Otte 368 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Otte v. Otte
368 N.W.2d 293
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418 , (taking judicial notice of the drop in value of stock between trial and appeal).
- Marriage of Hortis v. Hortis 367 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Hortis v. Hortis
367 N.W.2d 633
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428
- Coady v. Jurek 366 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Coady v. Jurek
366 N.W.2d 715
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428
- Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling 363 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling
363 N.W.2d 62
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Mabel contends that the trial court’s ruling is supported by Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418
- Boom v. Boom 367 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Boom v. Boom
367 N.W.2d 536
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 436 , Kiesow v. Kiesow, 270 Minn. 374, 386
- Webb v. Webb 360 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Webb v. Webb
360 N.W.2d 647
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
This concern was expressed in Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 436 , where the court said: [T]he decree should be so phrased as to permit such modification as might be required to prevent the inequities resulting from marked changes in market value of the property between the date of the decree and a timely execution of the plan of distribution contem
- Marriage of Balogh v. Balogh 356 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
Marriage of Balogh v. Balogh
356 N.W.2d 307
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The trial court’s method of valuation “is to be affirmed if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though this court may have taken a different approach.” citing Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418
- In Re the Marriage of Helland v. Helland 354 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
In Re the Marriage of Helland v. Helland
354 N.W.2d 591
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428
- Marriage of Nolan v. Nolan 354 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1984