Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sieber v. Sieber, 258 N.W.2d 754.

42 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
“Whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion generally is a discretionary decision of the district court, reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
In re the Marriage of: Lauren Elizabeth Schrock v. Richard Albert Kuhn Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Rather, the caselaw husband relies on suggests only that the district court should be “reluctant to alter the terms of the decree.”
In re the Marriage of: Mark David Plucinski v. Ellen Marie Budzynski Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Michael Dennis Dewar v. Luanna Sue Gary Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 754, 756 (Minn. 1977) (recognizing district court’s discretion to restrict presentation of evidence to nonoral testimony).
In re the Marriage of: Mary Elizabeth Moline v. Daniel Robert Moline Minn. Ct. App. 2019
While a district court is n ot required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion to modify or termina te spousal maintenance, husband and wife stipulated that the district court would conduct an evidentiary hearing upon a motion to modify or terminate spousal maintenance.
In re the Marriage of: Jason John Helms v. Mary Jo Helms, co-petitioner Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that cohabitation in itself is not a basis for termination or reduction of maintenance, except as it affects recipient’s economic wellbeing); Sieber v. Sieber , (holding the existence of meretricious relationship between divorced wife and another man, standing alone, would not be suffi cient ground to justify spousal-maintenance termination).
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ellen O’Mara-Meyer v. William Philip Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ellen O’Mara-Meyer v. William Philip Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The cases are legion supporting the position that the discretion conferred on the family court judge to amend prior [maintenance] orders is to be exercised cautiously, and any alteration must be based on a clear showing of a substantial change of circumstances in one or both of the parties.”
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(holding that it is within district court’s discretion to restrict presentation of evidence to nonoral testimony).
Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker 568 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker 568 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1997
d at 449 (); Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 180
Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan 566 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan 566 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1997
Claybaugh, d at 449 (); Kaiser v. Kaiser, 290 Minn. 173, 179
Burnette v. Bender 908 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In Re Irwin 529 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re Irwin 529 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6; (post-dissolution matter).
Marriage of Christenson v. Christenson 490 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Christenson v. Christenson 490 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Plonske v. Plonske 473 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Plonske v. Plonske 473 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Rather, the cohabitation should only be considered “insofar as it might improve an ex-spouse’s economic well-being.” Mertens, d at 491 ().
In Re the Marriage of Richards 472 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Marriage of Richards 472 N.W.2d 162 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Marriage of Aaker 447 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Marriage of Aaker 447 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Burdick v. Burdick 407 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Burdick v. Burdick 407 N.W.2d 136 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Quaid v. Quaid 403 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Quaid v. Quaid 403 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See, (“financial resources” include periodic payments received as a result of the distribution of marital property to a spouse pursuant to a dissolution decree); *907 (although obligor’s employment had been sporadic since the sale of his business, it was appropriate to continue his $300 support obligation when he was receiving $1500 per month under an installment contract for the sale of the business and showed no change in his standard of living); Peterson v.
Marriage of Jackson v. Jackson 403 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Jackson v. Jackson 403 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the rule’s specific application in support modification proceedings: [E]videntiary hearings ordinarily need not be conducted to consider alteration of alimony or support payments when the evidence can be fairly and more expeditiously presented by affidavits and docume
Sulzbach v. Sulzbach 395 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sulzbach v. Sulzbach 395 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 379 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Distinguished Marriage of Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 379 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Claybaugh v. Claybaugh 312 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1981
Claybaugh v. Claybaugh 312 N.W.2d 447 Minn. 1981
Although the trial court is vested with broad discretion to determine the propriety of a modification, we have suggested that trial courts exercise that discretion carefully and only reluctantly alter the terms of a stipulation governing maintenance.”
Marriage of Mertens v. Mertens 285 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1979
Marriage of Mertens v. Mertens 285 N.W.2d 490 Minn. 1979
Instead, it may be one of several grounds “in so far as it might improve an ex-spouse’s economic well-being.”
Abbott v. Abbott 282 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1979
Abbott v. Abbott 282 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 1979
we endorsed the rule that a meretricious relationship between a divorced spouse and another may be grounds for reducing or terminating alimony “in so far as it might improve an ex-spouse’s economic well-being.” The trial court specifically found that June was no longer obligated to make mortgage paym