Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Claybaugh v. Claybaugh, 312 N.W.2d 447.

48 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“Although the [district] court is vested with broad discretion to determine the propriety of a modification, 6 we have suggested that [district] courts exercise that discretion carefully and only reluctantly alter the terms of a stipulation governing maintenance.”).
In re the Marriage of: Benjamin Walter Eidem, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But our supreme court has “suggested that [district] courts exercise that discretion carefully and only reluctantly alter the terms of a stipulation governing maintenance.”
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In Re the Marriage of: Susan Kay Schneider v. Michael John Schneider, Lyon County, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Re the Marriage of: Susan Kay Schneider v. Michael John Schneider, Lyon County, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(recognizing that a negotiated stipulation with both parties represented by attorneys carries significant weight and indicates individual parties’ reflection on their present and future needs), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen 767 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen 767 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(‘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 O'Donnell v. O'Donnell 678 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of O'Donnell v. O'Donnell 678 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(discussing stipulated spousal maintenance).
Kemp v. Kemp 608 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kemp v. Kemp 608 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of LeRoy v. LeRoy 600 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of LeRoy v. LeRoy 600 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker 568 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker 568 N.W.2d 705 Minn. 1997
While that stipulation represents the parties’ voluntary acquiescence in an equitable settlement, once it has been merged into the judgment and decree, it does not operate as a bar to later consideration of whether a change in circumstances warrants a modification.
Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan 566 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan 566 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker 543 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Marriage of Hecker v. Hecker 543 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Dougherty v. Dougherty 443 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Dougherty v. Dougherty 443 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Prange v. Prange 437 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Prange v. Prange 437 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
When a stipulation fixing the respective rights and obligations of the parties is involved, the trial court “should view it as an important element because it represents the parties’ voluntary acquiescence in an equitable settlement.”
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 434 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson 434 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Joneja v. Joneja 422 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Gunderson v. Gunderson 408 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1987
Marriage of Gunderson v. Gunderson 408 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1987
Marriage of Eichenholz v. Eichenholz 407 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
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
Although a stipulation is not binding on the court, : when a stipulation fixing the respective rights and obligations of the parties is central to the award, the trial court reviewing the original order or decree should view it as an important element because it represents the parties’ voluntary acquiescence in an equitable settlement.
Marriage of Gunderson v. Gunderson 399 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Gunderson v. Gunderson 399 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
*572 ANALYSIS When a stipulation fixing the respective rights and obligations is central to an award of maintenance contained with a dissolution decree, “the trial court reviewing the original order or decree should view it as an important element because it represents the parties’ voluntary acquiescence in an equitable settlement.”
Moylan v. Moylan 384 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1986
Moylan v. Moylan 384 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1986
In marriage dissolution cases, “when a stipulation fixing the respective rights and obligations of the parties is central to the award, the trial court reviewing the original order or decree should view it as an important element because it represents the parties’ voluntary acquiescence in an equitable settlement.” see also Ramsay v. Ramsay, 305 Minn. 321, 323-24
Marriage of Paulson v. Paulson 381 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Paulson v. Paulson 381 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Angelos v. Angelos 372 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Angelos v. Angelos 372 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Moylan v. Moylan 368 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Moylan v. Moylan 368 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Greeler v. Greeler 368 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Greeler v. Greeler 368 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The Minnesota Supreme Court has cautioned that “trial courts exercise [their] discretion carefully and only reluctantly alter the terms of a stipulation governing maintenance.”
Fifield v. Fifield 360 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Fifield v. Fifield 360 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Burr v. Burr 353 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Burr v. Burr 353 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In reviewing a provision of a decree based on a stipulation, “the trial court reviewing the original order or decree should view it as an important element because it represents the parties' voluntary acquiescence in an equitable settlement.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by