Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Aaron v. Aaron, 281 N.W.2d 150.

42 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
16 (Minn. 1979) (“Generally, courts base the distribution of property on the value of the property at the time of distribution .
In re the Marriage of: Kathy Marie Fowler, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But the district court is “not required to speculate about what either or both of the spouses may possibly do” and should avoid “engraft[ing] on the division further adjustments reflecting situations based on theory rather than fact.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Martin Sean Schmidt, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Julie Ann Schmidt, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Under Minnesota law, “it is within the [d istrict] court’s discretion to consider the tax consequences of its [marital property] award.” (quoting Aaron v. Aaron , (M inn.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Under Minnesota law, “it is within the [dis trict] court’s discretion to consider the tax consequences of its [marital property] award.” Maurer v. Maurer , ().
In the Marriage of: Deborah J. Schmitt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
He asserts that the decree essentially requires him to sell the equipment and machinery, at which time he will be “liable for all the capital gains on the machinery sale.” “[I]t is within the trial court’s discretion to consider the tax consequences of its award.” Aaron v. Aaron
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
iquidity to pay and the district court did not account for the costs of liquidating the property he was awarded.2 A district court must consider the tax consequences of a proper ty-distribution plan if “the sale of real estate ‘is required or is likely to occur within a short time after the dissolution.’” Reynolds v. Reynolds , (quoting Aaron v. Aaron , -54 (Minn. 1979)).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
at 607 (d 150, 153 (Minn. 1979)).
Maurer v. Maurer 623 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 2001
Maurer v. Maurer 623 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 2001
Galvin contends that the trial court’s consideration of tax consequences here constituted impermissible speculation under a line of this court’s
Maurer v. Maurer 607 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Maurer v. Maurer 607 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(suggesting tax consequences are properly considered when a taxable event will occur shortly after the dissolution); -93 (Minn.App.1984) (same), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Anderson v. Anderson 560 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Anderson v. Anderson 560 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In arguing tax consequences should be considered in a partition action, a marriage dissolution case.
Kriesel v. Gustafson 513 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Kriesel v. Gustafson 513 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Marriage of Reynolds v. Reynolds 498 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Reynolds v. Reynolds 498 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-54 (Minn.1979), the supreme court held that where the sale of real estate “is required or is likely to occur within a short time after the dissolution,” the trial court should consider the tax consequences therefrom.
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
Marriage of Southwell v. Southwell 413 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Southwell v. Southwell 413 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Salstrom v. Salstrom 404 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Salstrom v. Salstrom 404 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
A trial court need consider “only those tax consequences that arise from the distribution itself” and need not speculate as to “the possible tax consequences of either party’s future dealings with the property.”
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
At trial, the court sustained respondent’s objection to appellant’s pet.
Marriage of Brockman v. Brockman 373 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Brockman v. Brockman 373 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-93 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet.
Hedelius v. Hedelius 361 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Hedelius v. Hedelius 361 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
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
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
Marriage of Nolan v. Nolan 354 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Nolan v. Nolan 354 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 352 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1984
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 352 N.W.2d 738 Minn. 1984
In Re the Marriage of O'Brien v. O'Brien 343 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1984
In Re the Marriage of O'Brien v. O'Brien 343 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1984