Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis, 887 N.W.2d 249.

78 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Heidi Renae Karn-Kirwin, n/k/a Heidi Renae Karn, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Sheila L. Duhn, n/k/a Graff, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This threshold inquiry asks, in essence, whether the party seeking spousal maintenance has demonstrated a “showing of need.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
257 (Minn. 2016) (remanding where the district court refused to award spou sal maintenance because the property division, if converted into income-producing property, would meet the needs of the party seeking maintenance but did not calculate the tax costs of such a conversion).
In re the Marriage of: Curtis Glenn Marks, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Stacy admits that income generated by her property award “is to be included in calculating her need for maintenance.”
In re the Marriage of: Mark Allen Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(noting that “each marital dissolution proceeding is unique and centers upon the individualized facts and circumstances of the parties” (quotation omitted)).
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Curtis v. Curtis , , 252 (Minn. 2016).
In re the Marriage of: Casey Alena Holloway, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(rejecting a bright-line rule for determining whether a request to change parenting time was actually a motion to modify custody in part because it conflict e d “ w i t h t h e g o v e r n i n g principle that a district court has broad discretion in determi ning custody and parenting time matters”); (declining to adopt a bright-line rule for how to calculate potential investment inco me from distributed marital property when evaluating a spouse’s ability to provide adequate self-support because
In re the Marriage of: Jesse A. Freking, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court makes a clearly erroneous finding if the finding is “a gainst logic and the facts on record.” Curtis v. Curtis
Muschik v. Conner-Muschik 920 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Muschik v. Conner-Muschik 920 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Curtis v. Curtis , , 252 (Minn. 2016).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A factual finding is clearly erroneous only if it is “against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted).
A17-1687 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Julie Lynn Duesenberg, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Lynn J. Dreger, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A factual finding is clearly erroneous only if it is “against logic and the facts on record,” leaving us with a “definite and firm convictio n that a mistake has been 4 made.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Robert Joseph Hoolihan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-1036 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, 257 (Minn. 2016) (reversing and remanding issue of spousal maintenance when district court awarded no maintenance to unemployed spouse when parties separated after 22 years of marriage); (reversing permanent- spousal-maintenance award after two -and-one-half-
In re the Marriage of: Brent Lee Florine, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Scott Green, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 249, 252 (Minn. 2016).
In re the Marriage of: Tracy Wong Belcher, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Curtis , (explaining the district court may not require a maintenance-seeking spouse “to invade the principal of the property [awarded to a spouse seeking maintenance] to pay living expenses” (quotation omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Curtis v. Curtis , -57 (Minn. 2016).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The supreme court has only required di strict courts to consider th e effect of taxes when “the transaction creating the tax consequences is ‘required or is likely to occur.’” (quoting Aaron, d at 153).
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
While a spouse is not expected to invade the principal of investments to meet his or her monthly living expenses, Minnesota has “long recognized that a district court must consider all income of the requesting spouse, including income generated from marital property received in the dissolution.”