Cited by

See Nelson v. Nelson , (reviewing an order implementing or enforcing a dissolution judgment for an abuse of discretion).

And appellate courts “will not disturb an appropriate order to clarify, implement, or enforce terms of a decree, absent an abuse of discretion.”

(concluding that a district court may issue an order to enforce the provisions of a decree so long as it does not change any substantive rights).

The district court may issue an order to enforce its final dissolution decree “so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.” (quotation omitted).

Much as a district court has discretion in enforcing a property settlement, and in deciding whether to reopen and modify a property settlement, a district court that retains jurisdiction over a property settlement has discretion in determining whether and how to modify it.

DECISION This matter concerns the district court’s order enforcing the terms of the parties’ J&D. “This court will not disturb an appropriate order to clarify, implement, or enforce terms of a decree, absent an abuse of discretion.”

This court has made it clear that “[ w]hile a district court may not modify a final property division, it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of the decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.”

But “[w]hile a district court may not modify a final property division, it may issue orders 5 to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.” (quotation omitted).

“While a district court may not modify a final property division, it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “will not disturb an appropriate order to clarify, implement, or enforce terms of a decree, absent an abuse of discretion.” d 870, 871 (Minn. App. 2011).

DECISION “While a district court may not modify a final property division, it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.” (quotation omitted).

6 While “a district court may not modify a final property division, it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.” (quotation omitted).

Finally, we addressed the merits of Turuok’s claim: [E]ven if his request for relief could be considered timely, Minnesota law is clear that “a [district] court may not modify a final property division” except to “implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of the decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive righ ts.” (quotation 4 omitted).

Second, although “a district court may not modify a final property division, it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted); (recognizing that district court has discretion to use QDRO to implement division of pension rights).

Second, even if his request for relief coul d be considered timely, Minnesota law is clear that “a [district] court may not mo dify a final property division” except to “implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of the decree, so long as it does not change 5 the parties’ substantive rights.” (quotation omitted).

Nelson v. Nelson , d 870, 871 (Minn. App. 2011).

We “treat stipulated marriage-dissolution judgments as contracts for purposes of construction.”

For this argument, 4 4 We note that this is the only legal authority cited in either party’s brief.

(stating this principle as applied to stipulated dissolution judgment).

Nelson v. Nelson , (M inn.

A district court may issue orders to implement or enforce provisions of a judgment, , and appellate courts will not alter a district court’s implementation of a judgment provision unless the district court abuses its discretion

“Generally, a lien secures an underlying obligation.” see also Minn. Stat. § 514.99, subd.

But, a district court “may issue orders to implement, enforc e, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.” (quotation omitted).

19, 2008); d 870, 872 (Minn. App. 2011) ( “Courts treat stipulated marriage -dissolution judgments as contracts for purposes of construction.” ).

“An order implementing or enforcing a dissolution decree does not affect the parties’ substantive rights when it does not increase or decrease the original division of marital property.”

“‘While a [district] court may not modify a final property division, it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.’” (alteration in original) ().