Cited by

The law provides that equitable divisions need not be equal, and that a district court’s valuation of marital property need only have an “acceptable basis in fact” to pass clear-error review, Antone, d at 100.

898 (Minn. App. 2005) (“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district court’ s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”) .

And although the district court may not divide marital property based on any finding of fault, it is not prohibited from considering a spouse’s conduct that bears on the parties’ relative contributions toward the value of marital property

“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district court ’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”

(affirming district court’s adjustment to parties’ stipulated division of property to account for a decrease in value of an account); WL 6836788, at *3-5 (Minn. App. Dec.

(noting that district court may consider parties’ “earning ability” and capacity to generate income when making distributions under section 518.58); (“[A]n equitable division of marital property is not necessarily an equal division.” (Quotation omitted.)).

1; (explaining that the district court may consider a party’s contribution to preserving family land when dividing marital property).

“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.” Sirek v. Sirek , d 896, 898 (Minn. App. 2005).

ny audits if [she] signed a marital income tax [return], and [she] wanted to be on [her] own with [her] own honest way of doing things.” The district court found Wife’s “explanation reasonable and credible, particularly after viewing the exhibits and hearing the testimony offered at trial.” “An e quitable division of marital property is not necessarily an equal division.” (quotation omitted).

“ [W]hile the district court must make a just and equitable division of the marital property, an equitable division of marital property is not necessarily an equal division.” 11 Husband does not appear to challenge what the district court labeled marital and nonmarital property.

“[W]hile the district court must make a just and equitable division of the marital property, an equitable division of marital property is not necessarily an equal 7 division.” (quotation omitted) ; see also Kaste v. Kaste , -31 (Minn. App. 1987) (affirming 57% to 43% division of marital property in light of wife ’s health , financial, educational, and occupational difficu lties), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

“[W]hile the district court must make a just and equitable 3 division of the [parties’] marital property, ‘[a]n equitable division of marital property is not necessarily an equal division.’” ( rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Some caselaw militates against husband’s position: “[W]hile the district court must make a just and equitable division of the marital property, an equitable division of marital property is not necessarily an equal division.” Sirek v. Sirek , (quotation omitted).

1; (reversing and remanding division of marital property with specific instructions that the district court “may consider factors such as appellant’s contribution to the preservation of the [property]” and to adjust the marital property division to acc ount for a substantial change in value of t

“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district 22 court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”

d 564, 566 (Minn. App. 1984) (“A [district] court’s division of marital property need not be mathematically equal.”).

(addressing equitable division of marital assets).

11 income, and the contribution of each party in the preservation of the marital property.” see Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd.

A district court has broad discretion to divide marital 8 property, which this court will not reverse “absent a clear abuse of d iscretion or an erroneous application of the law.”

“When dividing marital property, the district court may consider many factors, such as the length of the marriage, sources of income, and the contribution of each party in the preservation of the marital property.” ; see Minn. Stat. § 518.58, subd.

A district court abuses its discretion in dividing property if it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.” Rutten v. Rutten , see also Sirek v. Sirek , d 896, 898 (Minn. App. 2005).

“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.” Sirek v. Sirek

1 (2018); d 896, 899 (Minn. App. 2005).

Husband’s claim is also meritles s. “District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”

(“The district court may not divide the property on the basis of marital misconduct.”).

“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district cour t’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”

“District courts have broad discretion over th e division of marital property and appellate courts will not alte r a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”

Rutten v. Rutten , Sirek v. Sirek

Division of marital assets “District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district cour t’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.” Sirek v. Sirek

“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a di strict court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”

“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”

“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”

“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”

“District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property and appellate courts will not alter a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.”