Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Faus v. Faus, 319 N.W.2d 408.

73 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Robert Thomas Brown, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
3b (2020); rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: William T. Bienemann, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(citing Faus v. Faus , ).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Marie Tiedke, nka Kathleen Marie Freitag, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dorweiler v. Dorweiler , -76 (Minn. App. 1987); see also Faus v. Faus , 12 (Minn. 1982).
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Faus v. Faus , d 408, 413 (Minn. 1982).
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
See Rohling v. Rohling , , 522 (Minn. 1986) (determining that retirement funds were marital because the spouse "acquired the right to receive the funds" during *306 the marriage); Janssen , d at 754 ("[T]he interest appellant holds becomes more than a mere expectancy-it becomes a chose in action , a contractual right: a property interest."); Faus v. Faus , , 413 (Minn. 1982) ("[T]he right to receive increases in value of the pension units was vested during the period of coverture because it was
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Aug.
Leon Asle Baxter v. Debra Kay Baxter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Leon Asle Baxter v. Debra Kay Baxter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Mikoda court noted that the “record contains no valuation or proposed valuation of the pension benefit contemporaneous with the dissolution decree.” 7 Id.; (affirming an award to wife of 50% of husband’s retirement units existing at time of dissolution, although the value of pension per unit increased with each of husband’s subsequent pay increases).
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 753 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 753 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2008
marital because it was purchased with marital funds, even though it was a successor to a similar failed nonmarital business); Nardi-ni, d at 195 (holding that increase in value of couple’s closely held corporation, in which the husband had acquired 50% ownership before the marriage, was marital because it was attributable to the efforts of the spouses during the marriage); (affirming trial court’s conclusion that a homestead purchased with nonmarital assets was marital because much of its value
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 627 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 627 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Nolden v. Nolden 448 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Nolden v. Nolden 448 N.W.2d 892 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
Further, the court noted: [I]n [-13 (Minn.1982) ] this court upheld a trial court order which awarded the wife a 50% share of her husband's pension benefits [as] spousal maintenance.
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
For example, the trial court awarded the respondent maintenance until the appellant retired, and gave her a 50 percent interest in future pension benefits which had vested during the marriage.
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 414 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Jensen v. Jensen 414 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 414 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1987
Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 414 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 1987
Marriage of Dorweiler v. Dorweiler 413 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Dorweiler v. Dorweiler 413 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Kvenild v. Kvenild 410 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Kvenild v. Kvenild 410 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lunde v. Lunde 408 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lunde v. Lunde 408 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Crace v. Crace 396 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Crace v. Crace 396 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
§ 518.58, the division of marital property statute); (fact that benefits are not readily available until a number of contingencies have occurred does not exclude their consideration as marital property); (firefighter pension benefits are property to be considered by the court in division of marital property); -98 (Minn.1983) (applying Faus, Jensen, and Elliott).
Marriage of Poach v. Poach 392 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Poach v. Poach 392 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
However, she claims that the acquisition of additional buildings and machinery during marriage is analogous to “improvements,” not to “appreciation” and is, thus
Marriage of Porter v. Porter 389 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Porter v. Porter 389 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
which found a similar exception to Minn.Stat.
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 Charlson v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Charlson v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 372 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 372 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of King v. King 368 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of King v. King 368 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Hein v. Hein 366 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1985