Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lee v. Lee, 775 N.W.2d 631.

190 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Kevin Max Peterson v. Rebecca Jane Peterson, County of Dakota, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
rev’d in part on other grounds, (“Once a maintenance obligor establishes entitlement to modification of a maintenance order, the court must balance the needs of the obligee against the obligor’s financial condition or ability to pay to determine the amount of maintenance award.”).
Victoria L. Sloan v. Kelly O'Neil, Regina Sabbia, Kerrie Cathcart, Uptown Realty & Management, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The prevailing party may recover actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees, as well as other equitable relief as determined by the court.” “[S]tatutory construction is a question of law, which [an appellate court] review[s] de novo.”
Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Racheal L. Hooten f/k/a Racheal L. Jones 889 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Racheal L. Hooten f/k/a Racheal L. Jones 889 N.W.2d 27 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: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “Maintenance is defined by statute as ‘an award made in a dissolution or legal separation proceeding of payments from the future income or earnings of one spouse for the support and maintenance of the other.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
Our cases suggest that a district court cannot require a maintenance-seeking spouse “to invade the principal of the property [awarded to a spouse seeking maintenance] to pay living expenses.” n.10 (Minn. 2009).
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ellen O�Mara-Meyer v. William Philip Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ellen O�Mara-Meyer v. William Philip Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.5 (Minn. 2009) (discussing the difference between property and income in the maintenance context).
S. Robideau Construction, Inc. v. John E. Hiber, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (“It is within the district court’s discretion to rule on a motion despite [movant]’s late filings.”), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, Benassi v. Back & Neck Pain Clinic, Inc., (noting movant’s “casual 7 and flagrant disregard” of filing and service requirements of Minn. Gen.
In Re the Matter of: Anne Ray Charitable Trust, a Minnesota charitable trust, under agreement dated August 20, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Re the Matter of: Anne Ray Charitable Trust, a Minnesota charitable trust, under agreement dated August 20, … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[S]tatutory construction is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
In re the Marriage of: Roger Alan Roy v. Bonnie LaMay Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Roger Alan Roy v. Bonnie LaMay Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(e) (2014); n.5 (Minn. 2009) (holding that the provisions of section 518A.29 defining gross income apply to spousal maintenance).
In re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Maintenance is defined by statute as ‘an award made in a dissolution or legal separation proceeding of payments from the future income or earnings of one spouse for the support and maintenance of the other.”’ (quoting Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd.
In re the Welfare of A.S. 882 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Welfare of A.S. 882 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for Approval of Its … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Petition of Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, for Approval of Its … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
(stating that a party shall receive maintenance in an amount that is reasonably needed to support one’s self).
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Because maintenance is awarded to meet need, maintenance depends on a showing of need.” d 631, 642 (Minn. 2009) (stating that the district court awarded wife more maintenance than she reasonably needed to support herself and instructing the district court on remand to make findings that support the current award or to make a different award).
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Patterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Patterson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[S]tatutory construction is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
Hennepin County, Mamie Jegbadai v. Gbenga Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hennepin County, Mamie Jegbadai v. Gbenga Akinnola Minn. Ct. App. 2016
2(e) (Supp. 2015); see Dakota County, d at 910 (interpreting this statutory language as “any modification of support—for whatever underlying reason—may be retroactive only, at the earliest, to the date of service of notice of the motion to modify”); (interpreting this statutory language, in the context of a spousal maintenance dispute, to mean “that the choice of retroactive date is committed to the discretion of the district court, as long as the date chosen is within the statutory limits”).
Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, Kagel Acquisition Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Kagel v. Christian Brackey, Kagel Acquisition Company, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Deka Haji Diriye v. Adam Jelle Jilacow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Deka Haji Diriye v. Adam Jelle Jilacow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
For purposes of spousal maintenance, the income of a self-employed person is defined by statute as “gross receipts minus costs of goods sold minus ordinary and necessary expenses required for self-employment.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.30 (2014); n.5 (Minn. 2009) (holding that definition of gross 5 income in section 518A.29 applies to calculations of spousal maintenance).
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(making “further comment” on certain issues “[i]n light of our decision”).
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
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(remanding for the district court to make findings justifying a maintenance award in excess of a recipient’s reasonable needs).
In re the Marriage of: Kerry S. Spolum v. Michael J. D'Amato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Re the ESTATE OF Esther Caroline SULLIVAN, Decedent 868 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Re the ESTATE OF Esther Caroline SULLIVAN, Decedent 868 N.W.2d 750 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kerry S. Spolum v. Michael J. D'Amato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Because maintenance is awarded to meet need, maintenance depends on a showing of need.” (stating that the district court awarded wife more maintenance than she reasonably needed to support herself and instructing the district court on remand to make findings that support the current award or a different award).