Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka, 675 N.W.2d 353.

118 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Dodamwalage Dinesh Jayawardena v. Mallikaarachchige Sathsarani Jayawardena Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski v. Olga Kedrowski Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Peterka v. Peterka
In re the Marriage of: Lakmini Yamuna Herath v. Susantha Herath Minn. Ct. App. 2019
However, “the district court is not required to make spe cific findings on every statutory factor if the findings that were made reflect that th e district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.”
In re the Marriage of: Lauri Sue Browning v. Daniel H. Gruenstein Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders v. Joseph James Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” (citing Schreifels v. Schreifels , ).
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris v. Robert Lee Hiniker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”
In re the Marriage of: Gregory Joseph Parnell v. Christine Melanie Parnell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nevertheless “[a] finding of a maintenance obligor’ s ability to pay maintenance is required to support an award of maintenance.” Peterka v. Peterka , , 358 (Minn. App. 2004).
In re the Marriage of: Laura Diane Hermer v. Lawrence James Cisek, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(recognizing that an initial award may be unfair if the obligee cannot meet the mar ital standard of living—one f actor in Minn. Stat. § 518.552); (instructing that, when considering whether to modify maintenance, the court must consi der
In re the Marriage of: Dennis D. Dickinson v. Marymargaret Dickinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 52.01; see also Peterka v. Peterka , (“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. F. and J. E., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
.and determine[s] that it reasonably supports the findings.”); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying this aspect of Wilson in a family law appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Kurtis Lee Manley v. Sara Anne Manley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N Husband argues that the district court erroneously determined that his gross monthly income is $33,513.1 “A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”
In re the Marriage of: Danielle M. Kerr, n/k/a Danielle M. Dubois v. Jonathan R. Kerr, County of … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Second, district courts are not required “to make specific findings on every statutory factor if the findings that were made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.”
In re the Marriage of: Robert Joseph Hoolihan v. Jacqueline Ann Hoolihan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(noting that the purpose of spousal maintenance “is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equit able under the circums tances”).
In re the Marriage of: Michelle E. Li-Kuehne v. Stephen E. Kuehne Minn. Ct. App. 2018
is increase, wife still “does not earn sufficient income to meet her living expenses, even though those expenses have already been reduced below the marital standard of living.” 2 When reviewing a district court’s determination of income for mainte nance purposes, this court will not set aside the district court’s finding s of fact unless they are “clearly erroneous.”
In re the Marriage of: Justin James Jurkovich v. Rebecca Jean Jurkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And t his court has stated that the purpose of spousal maintenance “is to al low the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the 8 circumstances.”
In re the Marriage of: James Edward Cook, II v. Hitomi Arimitsu Minn. Ct. App. 2018
70 (1951) (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrati ng that it supports the trial court’s findings” and an appellate court’s “dut y is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence, as we have done here, and determine[s] that it reasonably supports the findings”); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying this aspect of Wilson in a family law appeal).
In re the Marriage of: Jason John Helms v. Mary Jo Helms, co-petitioner Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Scott Green v. Julie Ann Green Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Walter Stance Davis v. Regina Kay Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 353, 357 (Minn. App. 2004).
In re the Marriage of: Lori Elaine Coleal v. David Michael Coleal Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he district court is not required to make specific findings on every statutory factor if the findings that were made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.”
In re the Marriage of: Crystol Kevan Caudullo v. Michael Anthony Caudullo Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: David Joseph Williams v. Cheryl Constance Stevens Williams 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: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
I. Income Calculation “A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker 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: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Hutchenson Owen v. Angela Dawn Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Neither Melius nor Peterka, to which Melius cites, defines “equitable under the circumstances.” Id.
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Hutchenson Owen v. Angela Dawn Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he district court is not required to make specific findings on every statutory factor if the findings that were 5 made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.”
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he district court is not required to make specific findings on every statutory factor if the findings that were made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.”
In re the Marriage of: Stephanie Kay Nelson v. Steven John Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Stephanie Kay Nelson v. Steven John Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living.”
In re the Marriage of: Marianne Ronate Reis v. Thomas Michael Hallberg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Marianne Ronate Reis v. Thomas Michael Hallberg Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living.”
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” d 353, 357 (Minn. App. 2004).
In re the Marriage of: Denise Kaye Newman v. Thomas Joseph Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Denise Kaye Newman v. Thomas Joseph Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court “is not required to make specific findings on every statutory factor if the findings that were made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.”
In re the Marriage of: Kumiko Olivia Highley v. Christopher Alan Kvaal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kumiko Olivia Highley v. Christopher Alan Kvaal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances.”
In re the Marriage of: Kerry S. Spolum v. Michael J. D’Amato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kerry S. Spolum v. Michael J. D’Amato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances.”