51132 Precedential Granted Processed

Marriage of Stevens v. Stevens

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed December 26, 1980 · 300 N.W.2d 1

Cited by

Marriage of Gorz v. Gorz 428 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Rundell v. Rundell 423 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Southwell v. Southwell 413 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Buhr v. Buhr 395 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Wehner v. Wehner 374 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Plaster v. Plaster 373 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Quade v. Quade 367 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Wanglie v. Wanglie 356 N.W.2d 850 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Marriage of O'Brien v. O'Brien 343 N.W.2d 850 Minn. 1984

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Bogen v. Bogen 261 N.W.2d 606

Opinion text

SHERAN, Chief Justice. This case presents an appeal from a judgment of the Hennepin County District Court dissolving the parties’ marriage and ordering a property settlement. Among the assets owned by each of the parties was a house in Hennepin County which the parties held in joint tenancy. The trial court gave the respondent sole title to this property, free and clear of any interest held by the petitioner, and it ordered the petitioner to make and deliver a quitclaim deed to the respondent conveying her interest in the premises to him. The trial court is accorded broad discretion in dividing property on dissolution of a marriage, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion. Bogen v. Bogen, 261 N.W.2d 606 (Minn.1977). Since the trial court’s disposition of the house under the facts of this case was not a clear abuse of its discretion, we affirm this part of the lower court’s judgment. The record also indicates that the parties jointly executed an unsecured promissory note in the amount of $20,000 to National City Bank, Minneapolis, shortly before their purchase of the house. The record indicates that the proceeds of this loan were used, at least in part, to make a downpayment on the property and that part of this loan remains unpaid. Since the trial court’s judgment granted the respondent sole title to the property, it is not just and equitable to hold the petitioner jointly liable on this note. We therefore remand on this issue so the lower court can take appropriate action consistent with this opinion. Affirmed in part; remanded in part.