Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Erlandson v. Erlandson, 318 N.W.2d 36.

270 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Laura Marie Knutsen v. Peder Nels Knutsen Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
2; -40 (Minn. 1982) (discussing the statutory factors).
In re the Marriage of Zachary Dean Hollingsworth v. Anne Marie Halling Roe, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of Zachary Dean Hollingsworth v. Anne Marie Halling Roe, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
2 (2024); -40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Ryan Russell Preusse v. Amanda Jayne Preusse Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Ryan Russell Preusse v. Amanda Jayne Preusse Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A. When determining whether to award spousal maintenance, the district court’s overall focus is on “the financial needs of [the spouse seeking maintenance] and [their] ability to meet those needs balanced against the financial condition [of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought].” -40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“A trial court’s determination of the amount and duration of spousal maintenance is final unless the court abused the discretion accorded to it.” ()); (“The standard of review for an appellate court examining an award of attorney fees is whether the district 2 Because we reverse the district court’s decision regarding its classification of the 5.78- acre property as nonmarital, we do not reach
In re the Marriage of: Tabitha Ann Sanborn, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[N]o single statutory factor for determining the type or amount of ma intenance is dispositive” and “each case must be determined on its own facts.” .
In re the Marriage of: Angela Marie Backman, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
2; se e -40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: Richard Leo Bassing, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 36, 40 (Minn. 1982) (affirming 54% -46% property division); (affirming 53%-47% property division); (affirming 57.5%-42.5% property division where the district court considered that, “were it not for appell
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly Erin Macfarlane, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
While the spousal maintenance statute does not specify whether the district court must consider gross income versus net income, “it usually is necessary for the district court to consider a spouse’s obligation to pay income taxes when determining his or her ability to provide adequate self-support through employment.” Id.; (affirming a maintenance award noting that the recipient’s “[reasonable] monthly expenses exceeded her net take- home salary”) (emphasis added ); Schmidt, d at 229 (reversing
In re the Marriage of: Kelly Susan LaPara, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The statute provides a non- exclusive list of eight relevant factors, but the overarching focus is on “the financial needs of [the spouse seeking maintenance] and her ability to meet those needs balanced against the financial condition of [the spouse from whom maintenance is sought].” -40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: Melissa F. Feierabend, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
four cases: Broms v. Broms , (implicitly recognizing that a maintenance-seeking spouse could use the income from a pre -dissolution non -marital family trust for self -support); Curtis v. Curtis , -55 (Minn. 20 16) (considering the income potential of a stock portfolio awarded as part of a marital property award); Erlandson v. Erlandson , (considering the investment income from a non-marital, pre-dissolution personal injury award as a source of income); (calculating the income of the payor spous
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A20-1261 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The statute includes a non- exhaustive list of relevant factors, but the central inquiry is “basically the financial needs of [the party seeking maintenance] and [the party’s] ability to meet those needs balanced against the financial condition of [the spouse].” -40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: John Alex Walker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Martin Sean Schmidt, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Julie Ann Schmidt, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Charles Edward Honke, Minn. 2021
These awards are “based on the notion that the marital relationship involves an economic partnership in which the spouses equally share the burdens and responsibilities of both marriage and dissolution.”
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The weighing of the factors essen tially requires the district court to conduct “a balancing of the recipient’s need ag ainst the obligor’s ability to pay.” (-40 (Minn. 1982)).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Deborah Lynn Nichols, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Although the district court must consider several statutory factors when setting or modifying spousal maintenance, “the issue is basically the financial needs of [the obligee] and her ability to meet those needs balanced against the financial condition of [t he obligor].” -40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly JoAnn Wauzynski, n/k/a/ Kimberly JoAnn Denne, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Ronald Lee Henrichs, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Edith Ponciano, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Although the statute lists several factors, the issue is “basically the financial needs of [the spousal-maintenance obl igee] and her ability to meet t hose needs balanced against the 4 financial condition of [the s pousal-maintenance obligor.]” Erlandson v. Erlandson , -40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: Charles Robert Aufenthie, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Although the statute lists several factors, “the issue is basically the financial needs of [the maintenance oblige e] and her ability to meet those needs balanced against the financial condition of [the maintenance obligor].” -40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Sheila L. Duhn, n/k/a Graff, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2 (2018); -40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2 ; see also Erlandson v. Erlandson , , 39-40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Bijoy Raghavan, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-1687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
2 ; see also Erlandson v. Erlandson , -40 (Minn. 1982) .
In re the Marriage of: Lynn J. Dreger, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Robert Joseph Hoolihan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Terry Anne Boggs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Kay Vogt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Praveen Prabhakaran, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Erlandson v. Erlandson , -40 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Scott Green, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In essence, the district court balances “the recipient’s needs against the obligor’s ability to pay.” (-40 (Minn. 1982)).
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Kristin Gorney, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
” Prahl v. Prahl, 627 (- 40 (Minn. 1982)).
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Hutchenson Owen v. Angela Dawn Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2016