Cited by

And “in a dissolution proceeding, a district court lacks personal jurisdiction over a nonparty and cannot adjudicate a nonparty’s property rights.” see Sammons v. Sammons , (stating that the “district court may not exercise jurisdiction over a nonparty” and “[lacked] personal jurisdiction to enter a judgment affecting [the property rights of a nonparty]”); (noting that Minn. Stat. § 518.58 (2000) “

(stating that, “in a dissolution proceeding, a district court lacks personal jurisdiction over a nonparty and cannot adjudicate a nonparty’s property rights”); (stating that the “district court may not exercise jurisdiction over a nonparty” and “[lacked] personal jurisdiction to enter a judgment affecting [the property rights of a nonparty]”); (noting that Minn. Stat. § 518.58 “does not

And generally, “in a dissolution proceeding, a district court lacks personal jurisdiction over a nonparty and cannot adjudicate a nonparty’s property rights.” see 7 (stating that the “district court may not exercise jurisdiction over a nonparty” and “[lacked] personal jurisdiction to enter a judgment affecting [the property rights of a nonparty]”); (noting that Minn. Stat. § 518.58, which provides fo

See Sammons v. Sammons , d 450, 457 (Minn. App. 2002) (stating, in the marital dissolution context, that the “district court may not exercise jurisdiction over a nonparty” and “[lacked] personal jurisdiction to enter a judgment affecting [the property rights of a nonparty]”); (noting

present.” Wolfe argues that the district court had no authority to alter father’s parenting time because father was not a party to this OFP proceeding.4 (“ The district court may not exercise jurisdiction over a nonparty.”).

See In re Marriage of Sammons , (refusing to award need -based attorney fees when party failed to establish the existence of elements required by section 518.14).

for the proposition that a district court may not divide marital property in a way that affects a nonparty’s property rights.

A “district court may not exercise jurisdiction over a nonparty.” In re Marriage of Sammons

In re Marriage of Sammons

In re Marriage of Sammons

d 450, 456 (Minn. App. 2002) (noting that a nonparty may appeal from a judgment adversely affecting his or her rights).

(refusing to award need- based attorney fees when the party failed to establish the existence of the elements required by section 518.14).

“The district court may not exercise jurisdiction over a nonparty.” -59 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that district court did not have personal jurisdiction to impose a constructive trust on the property of the mother of a party to a divorce proceeding because the mother was not a party, and it did not have quasi- in-rem jurisdiction because the mother had not received her due-pro

Cloud, n.5 (Minn. 2012) (“[A] judgment may not be enforced against persons who are not parties to an action.”); (stating that a non-party may appeal a judgment that adversely affects his or her rights).

The parties in a dissolution proceeding have a right to due process, which requires “notice, a timely opportunity for a hearing, the right to be represented by counsel, an opportunity to present evidence and argument, the right to an impartial decision maker, and the right to a reasonable decision based solely on the record.” (quotation omitted); see also Halverson ex rel.

(refusing to award attorney fees because the party failed to establish “the existence of those elements required by section 518.14 that would entitle her to need-based attorneys’ fees”).

“[T]he general rule is that a person may appeal from a judgment that adversely affects his or her rights, even if the person was not a party to the proceeding below.”