Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dent Ex Rel. Dent v. Casaga, 208 N.W.2d 734.

62 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Todd Charles Bork v. Carolyn Mitsu Bork Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Todd Charles Bork v. Carolyn Mitsu Bork Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 734, 747 (Minn. 1973).
Leslie E. Sheehy Lee, Appellant, vs. Travis W. Kalis, Respondent, County of Le Sueur, Respondent Minn. 2025
Leslie E. Sheehy Lee, Appellant, vs. Travis W. Kalis, Respondent, County of Le Sueur, Respondent Minn. 2025
and Tell v. Tell (Tell I), to support her argument that extrajudicial modifications of support orders are invalid.
In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie 866 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 2015
In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie 866 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 2015
See Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296 , (“We hold that a judgment of divorce providing for support payments in the future is a final judgment.
In re the Marriage of: Martha Jean Abbott v. James William Abbott Ladner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Martha Jean Abbott v. James William Abbott Ladner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, (discussing situations where district courts may lose jurisdiction to modify child support, while still retaining jurisdiction to enforce outstanding child support arrears); Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 295, (holding that delinquent child support payments cannot be enforced by contempt after the child is emancipated, but an aggrieved party may seek judgment for delinquent payments, and the district court has jurisdiction to enter such a judgment); Rodeberg, d at 58-59 (explain
Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Tarlan v. Sorensen 702 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
ANALYSIS I. The district court’s amended judgment allowed respondent “to reside with the children in Grand Forks, North Dakota until [respondent completes his education at [UND].” Citing Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296 , for the proposition that an amended judgment must be enforced by the district court unless a modification is ordered, appellant argues that the district court should have required respondent to return the children’s residence to Minnesota after he completed law school.
Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber 694 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber 694 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 297 , (emphasis added); (stating that divorce judgments governed by ten-year statute of limitations), revieiv denied (Minn. June 30, 1986).
In Re the Marriage of Opp 516 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
In Re the Marriage of Opp 516 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Cf. Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 297 , (barring action to obtain judgment for accrued support payments more than ten years past due from dissolution decree).
Marriage of Karypis v. Karypis 458 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Karypis v. Karypis 458 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
She relies on Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296 , aff'd
Marriage of Gibson v. Baxter 434 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Bednarek v. Bednarek 430 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bednarek v. Bednarek 430 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 297 , Minn. Stat. § 541.04 .
Marriage of Tinsley v. Tinsley 427 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Tinsley v. Tinsley 427 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296 , the court held that judgment for child support arrearages could be entered after the child reached the age of majority, even though the order could no longer be enforced by contempt proceedings.
Douglas County Child Support Enforcement Unit v. Cavegn 420 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Nelson v. Quade 413 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nelson v. Quade 413 N.W.2d 824 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The trial court cited Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292 , in holding that any extra-judicial attempt to modify a dissolution decree was unenforceable.
Mathison v. Clearwater County Welfare Department 412 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Mathison v. Clearwater County Welfare Department 412 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
ANALYSIS Appellant argues that under Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296 , the child support obligation is enforceable unless and until modified.
Marriage of Collins v. Collins 410 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Collins v. Collins 410 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296 , (a party may be required to provide child support to another even while he has temporary physical custody); (non-custodial parent required to continue paying chil
Marriage of Gerardy v. Gerardy 406 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Gerardy v. Gerardy 406 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296 , (decree of divorce providing for future support payments is a final judgment, but such decree may be subsequently modified).
Marriage of Hebeisen v. Hebeisen 401 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hebeisen v. Hebeisen 401 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296
Marriage of Heldt v. Heldt 394 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Heldt v. Heldt 394 N.W.2d 535 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
DECISION Under Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296 , extra-judicial modifications of a dissolution decree are not valid unless judicially approved.
LeTendre v. LeTendre 388 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
LeTendre v. LeTendre 388 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296
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
See Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292
Dolly v. Nichols 386 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dolly v. Nichols 386 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
§ 541.04 (1984); see also Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 297
Marriage of Tell v. Tell 383 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1986
Marriage of Tell v. Tell 383 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1986
The court of appeals affirmed the action of the trial court, holding that any private modification of dissolution decrees without subsequent judicial approval is “not valid.” In reaching this conclusion the appellate court relied on our decision in Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292
Marriage of Lindberg v. Lindberg 379 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Lindberg v. Lindberg 379 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296
S.G.K. v. K.S.K. 374 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sgk v. Ksk 374 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sgk v. Ksk 374 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 297
S.G.K. v. K.S.K. 374 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 297
Marriage of Stangel v. Stangel 366 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Stangel v. Stangel 366 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Dent v. Casaga, 296 Minn. 292, 296