Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Sirek v. Sirek, 693 N.W.2d 896.

57 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Gregory Ross Wickenhauser v. Denise Esther Wickenhauser, n/k/a Denise Esther Peterson, (A14-0417), and … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION I. “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.”
In re the Marriage of: Larry Joe Bolton v. Susan Mary Bolton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Larry Joe Bolton v. Susan Mary Bolton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Moreover, while we are aware that “an equitable division of marital property is not necessarily an equal division,” (quotation omitted), an inequality of roughly 62% to 38% requires some explanation of why it is equitable.
Harold B. Kaeding v. Monica S. Soleta, f/k/a Monica S. Kaeding, f/k/a Monica S. B. Jurupe, Zoraida Franco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Harold B. Kaeding v. Monica S. Soleta, f/k/a Monica S. Kaeding, f/k/a Monica S. B. Jurupe, Zoraida Franco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A]ppellate courts will not alter a district court’s property division absent a clear abuse of discretion or an erroneous application of the law.” (stating that a district court abuses its discretion when its resolution of a matter is “against logic and the facts on record”).
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen v. Peter John Bernhagen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen v. Peter John Bernhagen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4 DECISION “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.”