Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Schmitz v. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748.

148 citing documents.

Marriage of Bateman v. Bateman 382 N.W.2d 240 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Bateman v. Bateman 382 N.W.2d 240 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Should this court agree that the partnership interest is marital, William’s alternate argument is that the trial court erred in valuing his non-marital asset at only $14,-000.00
Marriage of Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 379 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 379 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Minn. Stat. § 518.54 , subd.
Marriage of Moon v. Moon 378 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Moon v. Moon 378 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Cummings v. Cummings 376 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Cummings v. Cummings 376 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Tailor-Navsaria v. Tailor-Navsaria 374 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Tailor-Navsaria v. Tailor-Navsaria 374 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Gummow v. Gummow 375 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Gummow v. Gummow 375 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Andersen v. Andersen 374 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Charlson v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Andersen v. Andersen 374 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
It applied the formula from Woosnam v. Woosnam, 587 S.W.2d 262 (Ky.1979), and arrived at the following calculations: Present Value $304,300 Less Encumbrances 51,740 Present Value of Real Estate $252,560 Value of 240 acres at time of marriage $ 56,920 Respondent’s contribution of non-marital property 12,000 Value of property now $304,300 Value of property at time of marriage 56
Marriage of Charlson v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the supreme court held that, where a spouse sells a residence which she owned before the marriage and reinvests the proceeds in a new residence, she has a non-marital interest in the new residence equal *476 to the proportion her interest in the first residence bore to the purchase price of the second res
Marriage of Plaster v. Plaster 373 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Plaster v. Plaster 373 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Redding v. Redding 372 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Redding v. Redding 372 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Larson v. Larson 365 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Larson v. Larson 365 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
DECISION Since both parties agree to the sale of the homestead, we reverse and remand with instructions to order the immediate sale of said homestead, provide for payment of all reasonable costs of sale, payment of all existing liens (if not assumed), and division of the net proceeds, if any
Marriage of McGaughey v. McGaughey 363 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of McGaughey v. McGaughey 363 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Pearson v. Pearson 363 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Pearson v. Pearson 363 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Re the Marriage of Quinlivan v. Quinlivan 359 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Marriage of Quinlivan v. Quinlivan 359 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Montgomery v. Montgomery 358 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Montgomery v. Montgomery 358 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Appellant argues, in the alternative, for determining and dividing the marital and non-marital interests in the home.
Marriage of Dahlberg v. Dahlberg 358 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Dahlberg v. Dahlberg 358 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In re the Marriage of Frank 357 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In re the Marriage of Frank 357 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Were the land and the buildings considered as one unit with a total value of $80,000, and cases interpreting Schmitz would result in the following: Wife’s contribution: $13,500 35.8% Husband’s contribution: 9,000 (value of land plus 23.9% $5,000) Marital contribution: 15,210 ($1,500 initially 40.3% plus $13,710 in improvements) Total initial value $37,710 1007 *104 Wife’s share: $28,640 35
Marriage of Gummow v. Gummow 356 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Gummow v. Gummow 356 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
After a trial, the court divided the parties’ home and cabin by using a formula which traced the non-marital contributions to the acquisition of the assets and treated the remainder of the equity as marital property
Marriage of March v. Crockarell 354 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of March v. Crockarell 354 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Dammann v. Dammann 351 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Dammann v. Dammann 351 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Filkins v. Filkins 347 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Kreidler v. Kreidler 348 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Kreidler v. Kreidler 348 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Filkins v. Filkins 347 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Faus v. Faus 319 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1982
Faus v. Faus 319 N.W.2d 408 Minn. 1982
Moreover, although a substantial portion of the appreciated value of the homestead is attributable to appellant’s nonmarital contribution, we note that the trial court offset its award of the homestead to respondent by awarding to appellant full interest in the rental property, which was marital property and was valued at $70,000.
Marriage of Brown v. Brown 316 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1982
Marriage of Brown v. Brown 316 N.W.2d 552 Minn. 1982
we approved the formula by which a trial court might correctly apportion the increase in equity between marital and nonmarital assets enunciated in Woosnam v. Woosnam, 587 S.W.2d 262 (Ky.App.1979).