Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wiese v. Wiese, 295 N.W.2d 371.

61 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Michael F. Kohorst, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether there is a substantial change in circumstances rendering an existing support obligation unreasonable and unfair generally requires comparing the parties’ circumstances at the time support was last set or modified to their circumstances at the time of the motion to modify.” () (applying standard to a decision to modify child support).
In re the Marriage of: Michelle E. Li-Kuehne, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
existing at the time” the award “was last modified.”
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Modification of such awards should be made “cautiously and only upon clear proof of facts showing that a substantial change in circumstances renders modification equitable.” (regarding modification of spousal maintenance); see also Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 295 Minn. 29, 32, (stating the same standard in the context of modification of a child-support award).
In re the Marriage of: Lian Yang McGaughey v. William Howard Taft McGaughey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Lian Yang McGaughey v. William Howard Taft McGaughey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Modification of maintenance should be made cautiously and “only upon clear proof of facts showing that a substantial change in circumstances renders modification equitable.”
In re the Marriage of: Beverly Abuzzahab v. Faruk Said Abuzzahab Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Beverly Abuzzahab v. Faruk Said Abuzzahab Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But modification of maintenance should be made cautiously and “only upon clear proof of facts showing that a substantial change in circumstances renders modification equitable.”
Maschoff v. Leiding 696 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Maschoff v. Leiding 696 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley 674 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
2(a) (2002); Hecker, d at 709 ; (observing that a modification under Minn.Stat.
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Santillan v. Martine 560 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Mower County Human Services ex rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt 539 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Mower County Human Services ex rel. Swancutt v. Swancutt 539 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
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
According to the supreme court, although trial courts have broad discretion in ruling on motions for modification, maintenance awards should only be modified where “clear proof of * * * a substantial change in circumstances renders modification equitable.”
Marriage of Phillips v. Phillips 472 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Phillips v. Phillips 472 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Wiese, Blomgren, d at 380 .
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 435 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 435 N.W.2d 145 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
( Ramsay v. Ramsay, 305 Minn. 321, 322 , ).
Marriage of Videen v. Peters 438 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Videen v. Peters 438 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Neubauer v. Neubauer 433 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Neubauer v. Neubauer 433 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In addition “[t]he burden of proof is on the movant,” to show “clear proof of facts showing * * * a substantial change of circumstances” and an appellate court should be “reluctant to interfere with an exercise of [the trial court’s] substantial discretion.”
Marriage of Joneja v. Joneja 422 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Kruschel v. Kruschel 419 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Kruschel v. Kruschel 419 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Peterson v. Peterson, 304 Minn. 578, 580
Marriage of Garcia v. Garcia 415 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Garcia v. Garcia 415 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 409 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 409 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(specific findings supporting maintenance modification required).
Marriage of Hillestad v. Hillestad 405 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hillestad v. Hillestad 405 N.W.2d 436 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
2, however, appellant must show “clear proof of facts showing a substantial change of circumstances from *439 those existing at the time of the dissolution.” (emphasis added).
Marriage of Johnson v. Fritz 406 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Johnson v. Fritz 406 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
§ 518.64 (1986), requires a showing of “a substantial change of circumstances from those existing at the time of the dissolution or * * * at the time the award was last modified.” (emphasis added)
Marriage of Halvorson v. Halvorson 402 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Halvorson v. Halvorson 402 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Tuthill v. Tuthill 399 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Tuthill v. Tuthill 399 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
An award of maintenance is to be modified “only upon clear proof of facts showing a substantial change of circumstances from those existing at the time of the dissolution * *
Marriage of James v. James 397 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of James v. James 397 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ramsay v. Ramsay, 305 Minn. 321, 322
Sulzbach v. Sulzbach 395 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Sulzbach v. Sulzbach 395 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(awards should be modified “cautiously and only upon clear proof of facts showing that a substantial change in circumstances renders modification equitable”).
Marriage of Looyen v. Martinson 390 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Looyen v. Martinson 390 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Blomgren v. Blomgren 386 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Blomgren v. Blomgren 386 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Moylan v. Moylan 384 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1986

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by