Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Arundel v. Arundel, 281 N.W.2d 663.

77 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“we are not free to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court absent a clear abuse of its discretion.”).
John August Krueger, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But “we are not free to substitute our judgment for that of the [district] court absent a clear abuse of its discretion.”
In re the Marriage of: Angela Marie Backman, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Charles Robert Aufenthie, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Arundel v. Arundel , d 663, 667 (Minn. 1979); (M inn.
In re the Marriage of: Larry Allan Keeler, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, a spousal-maintenance award should not be limited to the recipient’s “bare necessities of life.” -67 (Minn. 1979).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Michelle E. Li-Kuehne, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, e.g., Arundel v. Arundel , (“We have allowed provisions for life insurance to secure permanent alimony.
Sheehy Construction Company v. City of Centerville Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sheehy Construction Company v. City of Centerville Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Matter of: C. O. v. John and Jackie Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: C. O. v. John and Jackie Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[W]e are not free to substitute our judgment for that of the [district] court absent a clear abuse of its discretion.”); (modifying the fee award rather than remanding “[d]ue to the protracted nature of this proce
Marie Delores Green v. BMW of North America, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marie Delores Green v. BMW of North America, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[W]e are not free to substitute our judgment for that of the [district] court absent a clear abuse of its discretion.”); (modifying the fee award rather than remanding “[d]ue to the protracted nature of this proce
Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc. 786 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 2010
Lee v. Lee 775 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2009
Lee v. Lee 775 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2009
We have repeatedly stated that the support to which a divorced party is entitled “is not simply that which will supply her with the bare necessities of life.”
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
25, 2000); (stating pre-1985, exceptional-case test for securing permanent spousal maintenance with life insurance), -55 (Minn.App.1990) (confirming that after 1985 the decision to secure a maintenance award with life insurance lies “almost wholly within the trial court’
In Re Conservatorship of Smith 655 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re Conservatorship of Smith 655 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
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
See, -67 (Minn.1979) (affirming permanent award in the “exceptional case” of a 51-year-old wife, married 29 years, who had health problems and no vocational skills or independent resources); Abuzzahab, d at 14 (reversing award of permanent maintenance to wife, married over 20 years, finding she was capable of
Walker v. Walker 553 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Walker v. Walker 553 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Head v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 449 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Head v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 449 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See ($2000 per month spousal maintenance award upheld where obligor’s gross income prior to the divorce ranged from $91,000 to $108,000 and obligee had health problems); pet.
Marriage of Duffey v. Duffey 432 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Duffey v. Duffey 432 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
for her claim that the trial court abused its discretion in its failure to order her as a named beneficiary under Edward’s insurance policy to secure payment of maintenance in the event of Edward’s death.
Thiebault v. Thiebault 421 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Thiebault v. Thiebault 421 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
the court had the power to order an obligor to provide life insurance benefits for child support payments.
Marriage of Koenen v. Koenen 413 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Koenen v. Koenen 413 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of O'Donnell v. O'Donnell 412 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of O'Donnell v. O'Donnell 412 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“[I]n the exceptional case the reasons which justify granting permanent alimony * * * also justify the securing of that alimony.”
Marriage of Safford v. Safford 391 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Safford v. Safford 391 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
However, held that poor health is a proper reason for awarding permanent maintenance.
Marriage of Doherty v. Doherty 388 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Doherty v. Doherty 388 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hattstrom v. Hattstrom 385 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hattstrom v. Hattstrom 385 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
she also has health problems and should receive permanent maintenance.
Marriage of Ryan v. Ryan 383 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Ryan v. Ryan 383 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Sand v. Sand 379 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Sand v. Sand 379 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 374 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1985