Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 231 N.W.2d 71.

30 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Mandeep Singh Sodhi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[E]ach case is to be considered in light of its particular facts.” Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568, 571
In re the Marriage of: Julia Ellen Conlon, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[E]ach case is to be considered in light of its particular facts.” Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568, 571
Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain 615 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain 615 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568, 571 , -29 (Minn.App.1984); (holding that, in equity, the district court may apportion all the debt to one party even though the other party receives the benefit of payment).
Marriage of McKee-Johnson v. Johnson 444 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1989
Marriage of McKee-Johnson v. Johnson 444 N.W.2d 259 Minn. 1989
(contract which encompassed property “now owned or hereafter acquired” upheld); Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568, 571 , (parties’ contract covered marital assets, except for homestead, which was outside coverage of the agreement).
Redding v. Oldewartel 411 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Redding v. Oldewartel 411 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(county court had jurisdiction to interpret and enforce provision of dissolution judgment concerning specific performance of a contract for the sale of land even though it generally lacked jurisdiction over cases involving title to land); Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568 , (under Minn.Stat.
Schuck v. Schuck 390 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schuck v. Schuck 390 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568, 571
Marriage of Doering v. Doering 385 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Doering v. Doering 385 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568
Marriage of Frederiksen v. Frederiksen 368 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Frederiksen v. Frederiksen 368 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568, 571
Marriage of Tucker v. Tucker 368 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Tucker v. Tucker 368 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
§ 518.58; Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568
Marriage of Yackel v. Yackel 366 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Yackel v. Yackel 366 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568
Marriage of Montgomery v. Montgomery 358 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Montgomery v. Montgomery 358 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kendall v. Kendall, 289 Minn. 494 , Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568
Marriage of Hill v. Hill 356 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Hill v. Hill 356 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568 , the court considered whether disposition of the homestead was controlled by the following provision: That the parties hereby declare it to be their intention that during their marriage each of them shall be and continue to be completely independent of the other as regards the enjoinment [sic] a
Marriage of Kreidler v. Kreidler 348 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Kreidler v. Kreidler 348 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568
Hafner v. Hafner 295 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1980
Hafner v. Hafner 295 N.W.2d 567 Minn. 1980
Our conclusion is supported by the decision in Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568 , where provisions of an antenuptial agreement similarly worded to the instant contract 4 were found to be of a “comprehensive purview” and thus applicable upon any termination of the marital relationship.
Cummins v. Redman 251 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1977
Cummins v. Redman 251 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 1977
Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Lenzmeier 243 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1976
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Lenzmeier 243 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 1976
This court affirmed in Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568