Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Grigsby v. Grigsby, 648 N.W.2d 716.

56 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: David Ray Honeman v. Carol Lynn Honeman Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Lori Ann Chang v. Peter Alan Chang Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The district court has broad discretion in setting the marital property valuation date.” d 716, 720 (Minn. App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Range Cornice & Roofing Company v. Spectra Building Group, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2026
But Range Cornice convincingly responds that Spectra neither asserted an affirmative defense based on such a duty in its answer nor asserted this argument in the district court until it mentioned the issue in its posttrial proposed findings of fact and 16 conclusions of law.6 “[A]n issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion.” ( (explaining that a claim was made “too late” when it was first made in a motion for a new trial); Allen v. Cent.
In the Marriage of: Todd Charles Sherette v. Melissa Ann Sherette Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting marital property valuation date “[b]ecause the district court made specific findings that explained its rationale” and “those findings are not clearly erroneous”).
In the Marriage of: Justin Benjamin Merritt v. Virginia Witherspoon Merritt Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The district court has broad discretion in setting the marital property valuation date.” d 716, 720 (Minn. App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Oluwafunbi Ige Olusina v. Ann Oludolapo Olusina Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Chad Monson, et al v. Thomas J. Egge, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
490, 492 (Minn. 1939) (holding defense raised for the first time in motion for amended findings was raised “too late”); (holding claim came “too late when suggested for the first time” in motion for a new trial); (“We initially note that an issue first raised in a posttrial motion is not raised in a timely fashion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Jo Pemberton v. Stephen Blake Pemberton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The district court denied Wife’s motion because “[t]his was not the position Wife took at trial, nor the position Wife advocated in her Proposed Findings of Fact.” The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wife’s motion to amend because “an issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion.”
In re the Marriage of: Whitney Ariane Blessing (A21-1709) (A21-1725) v. Andrew David Blessing (A21-1709) (A21-1725) Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Richard Leo Bassing v. Barbara Laraine Bassing Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Kristin Grace Logdahl v. Roger Duane Logdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2022
District courts have “broad discretion in setting the marital property valuation date.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Catrina M. Rued v. Joseph D. Rued Minn. Ct. App. 2022
490, 492 (Minn. 1939) (amended findings); (citing these aspects of Antonson and Allen in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Kelly John Brown v. Shawn Marie Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Matter of: Josie Marie Martin v. Justin Michael Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Second, even ignoring th e impropriety of Justin’s motion for a new trial, an issue raised for the first time in a motion for a new trial is raised “too late.” Antonson v. Ekvall , (applying this principle from Antonson in a marital-dissolution action), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. H., Parent Minn. Ct. App. 2021
490, 492 (Minn. 1939) (determining that a factual argument was “too late” when firs t raised in a motion for amended findings); (“[A] issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion”).
In re the Marriage of: David Gordon Wingad v. Janet Marie Wingad Minn. Ct. App. 2021
490, 492 (Minn. 1939); d 187, 189 (Minn. 1971) (stating that an issue is raised “too late” if it is first raised in a motion for a new trial); see also Grigsby v. Grigsby , (citing these aspects of Allen and Antonson in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Martin Sean Schmidt v. Julie Ann Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Sandra D’Antonio, et al v. Jennifer Lynn Martinez, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[A]n issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion.” d 716, 726 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Lee Roberts n/k/a Michelle Lee Freitas v. Todd Mykle Roberts, County of … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
n with Freitas, and that the GAL in the custody dispute was the same GAL a ssigned during the OFP proceedin g. Based on these facts, Freitas argues that the GAL report is biased a nd “not aimed to protect the interests of the children.” Freitas presents no legal authority for the proposition that the GAL’s report must be disregarded as biased under these circumstances, d 716, 726 (Minn. App. 2002) (concluding that arguments submitted without legal authority are forfeited), and, in any even t, we
In re the Marriage of: Maria Rothen v. Jason David Rothen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Thiele v. Stich , (explaining that appellate courts generally will not consid er matters not argued to and considered by the district court); Grigsby v. Grigsby , (observing that arguments submitted without legal authority are forfeited).
In re the Custody of: N. Y. B., James Edward Bono v. Megan Yvonne Hedberg Minn. Ct. App. 2020
490, 492 (Minn. 1939) (stating that an issue first raised in a motion for amended findings is “too late”); (stating that an issue is raised “too late” if it is first raised in a motion for a new trial); see also Grigsby v. Grigsby , (citing these aspects of Antonson and Allen in a family -law appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Ronald Lee Henrichs v. Charlene Lila Henrichs Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Grand Central Lofts Phase I Condominiums v. Grand Central Lofts Master Association, et al., and Grand Central Cottages … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: James Edward Cook, II v. Hitomi Arimitsu Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Winesett v. Heather Winesett Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Donald William McIsaac v. Nadine S. Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Maurer v. Grigsby v. Grigsby , -23 (Minn. App. 2002) (addressing whether property was acquired before or after the valuation date).
In re the Marriage of: Cynthia A. Linnerooth v. Gerald R. Linnerooth Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Grigsby v. Grigsby , review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Suzanne Lea Pham, nka Suzanne Lea Filippi v. Cuong V. Pham Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The district co urt has broad discretion in setting the marital property valuation date.” Grigsby v. Grigsby , review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Marie Wilson v. Todd Joseph Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lund v. Lund 924 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lund v. Lund 924 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Grigsby v. Grigsby , , 720 (Minn. App. 2002) (reviewing district court's valuation *283 date for marital property under statute setting date as initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference or stipulated date "unless the court makes specific findings that another date of valuation is fair and equitable").
In re the Marriage of: Dennis D. Dickinson v. Marymargaret Dickinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
490, 492 (Minn. 1939); see Antonson v. Ekvall , (stating that an issue is raised “ too late” if it is first raised in a motion for a new trial); (citing these aspects of Antonson and Allen in a family law appeal), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Terry Anne Boggs v. David Carl Boggs Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Matter of: Peter H. Stier v. Debra A. Peterson, n/k/a Debra A. Hershberger, County of … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, e.g., Grigsby v. Grigsby , (affirming a district court’s refusal to “speculate” about certain tax consequence s, stating that the refusal to do so was “ proper[]”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Kristin Gorney v. Keith Joseph Gorney Minn. Ct. App. 2017
), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Laura Diane Hermer v. Lawrence James Cisek, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district c ourt is not required to consider future tax consequences in valuing marital property when considering those consequences “would force it to speculate.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
Gwender Lagrone Taylor v. Ian W. Taylor, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gwender Lagrone Taylor v. Ian W. Taylor, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “an issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Stephanie Kay Nelson v. Steven John Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Stephanie Kay Nelson v. Steven John Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-22 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Oct.
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
review denied (Minn. Oct.
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
490, 492 (1939) (stating that an issue first raised in a motion for amended findings is “too late”); review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Alyssa Aileen Rex, f/k/a Alyssa Aileen Nicoski v. Steven Edward Nicoski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Alyssa Aileen Rex, f/k/a Alyssa Aileen Nicoski v. Steven Edward Nicoski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We initially note that an issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion.”
In re the Matter of Boyd Jacob Phelps v. Lynnea Diana Sterling Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of Boyd Jacob Phelps v. Lynnea Diana Sterling Minn. Ct. App. 2015
103(a), and raise the issue in a post-trial motion for a new trial, because “an issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
The Janice Kaunas Samsing Revocable Trust, et al v. Arthur D. Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Janice Kaunas Samsing Revocable Trust, et al v. Arthur D. Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotations omitted)); (stating that “an issue first raised in a post-trial motion is not raised in a timely fashion”); (providing that when issues are first raised in a post-hearing memorandum, they are considered waived).