Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Baker v. Baker, 753 N.W.2d 644.

72 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Julie Karen Johnson v. Thomas Francis Johnson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Angie Lynn Magnuson Swierzewski v. David Matthew Swierzewski Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: David Ray Honeman v. Carol Lynn Honeman Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In Re the Marriage of Joshua Laurance Patterson v. Rebecca Marie Patterson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Diana Jakubauskiene v. Robertas Jakubauskas Minn. Ct. App. 2026
To overcome the presumption of marital property, a spouse must prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the property is “nonmarital property.” d 644, 649-50 (Minn. 2008).
In the Marriage of: Todd Charles Sherette v. Melissa Ann Sherette Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law that this court reviews independently, but we give “deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”
In the Marriage of: Justin Benjamin Merritt v. Virginia Witherspoon Merritt Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”
In the Marriage of: Karen Dennie v. Ricky Dennie Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Marriage of: Allison Baron Bonnett v. Theodore James Bonnett Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Onori Hansen v. Jay Ralph Hansen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Linda Beth Krelitz v. Michael James Krelitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Shima Shojaee Falavarjani v. Navid Tabrizi Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Shima Shojaee Falavarjani v. Navid Tabrizi Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Renee Caroline McGeary v. John Patrick McGeary Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Ritesh Singh v. Rina Singh Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The idea of marital property is ‘grounded in the principle that marriage is a partnership and that each partner should get out of the marriage a fair share of what was put into it.’” Gill, d at 302 ().
In re the Marriage of: Kiran Kumar Arise v. Anjali Naresh Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Kiran Kumar Arise v. Anjali Naresh Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3b(d) (2022) (“property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage and before the valuation date is presumed to be marital property”); -50 (Minn. 2008).
In re the Marriage of: Jerry Arthur McDonald v. Donna Arnela McDonald, n/k/a Donna Arnela Rosenblad Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Russell Vander Wiel v. Sharna Ann Wahlgren Minn. Ct. App. 2023
B. Attorney Fees Generally, the payment by a party to a marital dissolute proceeding of attorney fees is not a payment “in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life.”
In re the Marriage of: William T. Bienemann v. Yelena Y. Bienemann Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Elizabeth Solinsky, n/k/a Jessica Elizabeth Grimm v. Joseph Clark Solinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2022
see Baker v. Baker , (noting this aspect of the Wiegers opinion).
Alison Margaret Perry v. Douglas Perry, et al., Expert Sheet Metal, Inc., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Knewtson, n/k/a Nicole Marie Campbell v. Adam Christopher Knewtson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Kevin James Stanton v. Megan Caroline Curran Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Perrill v. Gregory High Perrill Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly JoAnn Wauzynski, n/k/a/ Kimberly JoAnn Denne v. John Justin Wauzynski Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Randy James Hildebrandt v. Tracy Jean Hildebrandt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
ta statute, dissipation occurs when “ a party to a marriage, without consent of the other party, has in contemplation of commencing, or during the pendency of, the current dissolution, separation, or annulment proceeding, transferred, encumbe red, concealed, or disposed of marital assets except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life.” Id.; see, e.g., Baker v. Baker , (quoting the statute when describing the test for dissipation).
In re the Marriage of: Adetola Omolola Allen, n/k/a Adetola Omolola Abodunde v. Temitope Oluwaseyi Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Dissipation occurs when a party to a marriage, without the consent of the other party, in contemplation of commencing or during the pendency of the current dissolutio n, “transferred, encumbered, concealed, or disposed of marital assets except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life.” Baker v. Baker , 10 (Minn. 2008).
In re the Marriage of: Donald William McIsaac v. Nadine S. Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” 50 (Minn. 2008) ; see also Gottsacker, d at 853
Mark Kedrowski, Minn. 2019
(remanding to court of appeals to address unresolved arguments that were not before our court).
In re the Marriage of: Faye Karen Bernstein (A18-1402) (A18-1408) v. Scott Tomi Gilbert (A18-1402) (A18-1408) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts “independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Lakmini Yamuna Herath v. Susantha Herath Minn. Ct. App. 2019
ta statute, dissipa tion occurs when “a party to a marriage, without consent of the other party, has in contemplation of commencing, or during the pendency of, the current dissolution, separation, or annulment proceeding, transferred, encumbered, concealed, or disposed of marital assets except in the usual co urse of business or for the necessities of life.” Id.; see, e.g. , Baker v. Baker , (quoting the statute when describing the test for dissipation); Risk ex rel.
In re the Marriage of: Amy Alyssa Post v. Samuel Morton Post, III Minn. Ct. App. 2019
16 Appellate courts “independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Jesse A. Freking v. Audra Jo Buxengard f/k/a Audra Jo Freking Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Explained Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Baker v. Baker , , 650 (Minn. 2008).
Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester 913 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2018
Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester 913 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2018
Baker v. Baker , , 653 (Minn. 2008).
In re the Marriage of: Mandeep Singh Sodhi v. Leisa Lynn-Ketelsen Sodhi Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” (quotation marks omitted) .
In re the Marriage of: Patricia Rose Whipps v. Richard Cordell Whipps Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Id.; (stating that “[appellate courts] independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact”).
In re the Marriage of: Glenn Alan LaTour v. Nancy Jean LaTour Minn. Ct. App. 2017
[I]f [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm convi ction that a mistake has been made, [it] may find the [district] court’s decision to be clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the existence of evidence to support such findings.” Olsen v. Olsen , (quotation and citation omitted); (stating that “[appellate courts] independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the di strict court’s findings of fact”).
In re the Marriage of: Laura Diane Hermer v. Lawrence James Cisek, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
9 whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Lana Michelle Kerola v. Greg William Kerola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Lana Michelle Kerola v. Greg William Kerola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Emily-Jean Chinwendu Aguocha v. Ikechukwu Hisa Aguocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Emily-Jean Chinwendu Aguocha v. Ikechukwu Hisa Aguocha Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellate courts “independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Carol Lee D’Costa v. Joseph Francis D’Costa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Carol Lee D’Costa v. Joseph Francis D’Costa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“‘[A]n increase in the value of nonmarital property attributable to inflation or to market forces or conditions[] retains its nonmarital character.’” ().