Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Janssen v. Janssen, 331 N.W.2d 752.

78 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child. Minn. 2022
Further, “ ‘[w]hen “include” is utilized, it is generally improper to conclude that entities not specifically enumerated are excluded.’ ” Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196, 219 (2010) (quoting 2A N. Singer & J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47:23, (7th ed. 2007), and collecting cases); (“[T]he word ‘includes’ .
In re the Marriage of: Francis Stephen Gill, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
proceeding, appellant argues that the district court made the following 2 four errors: (1) the distr ict court improperly divided a contingent asset to make up for respondent’s inadequate income; (2) the district cour t improperly treated appellant differently than the other investors of the parent company of Talenti Gelato; (3) the district court improperly relied on Janssen v. Janssen , (Minn .
In re the Marriage of: Cynthia A. Linnerooth, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The district court used the coverture formula found in Janssen v. Janssen , to divide Mitchell’s retired pay.
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Janssen v. Janssen , , 755 n.3 (Minn. 1983).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Division of unvested, unmetered pensions is addressed in Janssen v. Janssen , and its progeny.
Leon Asle Baxter v. Debra Kay Baxter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Leon Asle Baxter v. Debra Kay Baxter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In this case, d 752 (Minn. 1983), which has been favorably cited as an equitable way to divide a pension that contains marital and non-marital property.
Carleen Kaye Theno, n/k/a Carleen Kaye Starkovich v. John Marvin Theno Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Carleen Kaye Theno, n/k/a Carleen Kaye Starkovich v. John Marvin Theno Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(describing pension division formula).
In re the Marriage of: Patricia Elaine Radziwill v. Michael Radziwill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Patricia Elaine Radziwill v. Michael Radziwill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2 In allocating the Respondent’s retirement benefits, the court shall utilize the formula provided in Janssen vs. Janssen, () (Minn. 1983), where the numerator is the length of the parties’ marriage (months/years) and the denominator is the number of months/years that the Respondent has earned Retirement benefits, for a percentage allocation of the marital interest at fifty percent (50%).
Gary Michael Lusso v. Muriel Elaine Lusso Quiggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gary Michael Lusso v. Muriel Elaine Lusso Quiggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that unvested, unmatured pension benefit is martial property); -55 (Minn. App. 1984) (dividing an unvested pension benefit), review denied (Minn. July 26, 1984); cf. Leatherman, 833 P.2d at 107-08 (including as benefit for wife, husband’s civilian F
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord 845 N.W.2d 754 Minn. 2013
Independent School District No. 709 v. Bonney 705 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Independent School District No. 709 v. Bonney 705 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“[T]he word includes is usually a term of enlargement, and not of limitation.” (quotation omitted).
Stageberg v. Stageberg 695 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Stageberg v. Stageberg 695 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
the supreme court addressed “whether a nonvested, unmatured pension [of one of the parties] is marital property which can be divided in a marital dissolution proceeding.” Id.
Walswick-Boutwell v. Boutwell 663 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Walswick-Boutwell v. Boutwell 663 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
5, as “operating] to give an expansive definition of what constitutes marital property.”
Marriage of Deason v. Deason 611 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Deason v. Deason 611 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(recognizing nonvested pensions are included in marital property definition).
Marriage of Swanson v. Swanson 583 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Swanson v. Swanson 583 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of McGowan v. McGowan 532 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of McGowan v. McGowan 532 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
United States v. O'Shaughnessy 517 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1994
United States v. O'Shaughnessy 517 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1994
Finally, this court’s that an interest in a nonvested, unmatured pension is “a property interest,” in the context of a divorce proceeding, id.
Lomen v. Lomen 433 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Distinguished Lomen v. Lomen 433 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
the options do not have a determinable market value in advance of the time when the restrictions are removed.
In Re the Marriage of Steffan 423 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In Re the Marriage of Steffan 423 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
the supreme court held that a nonvested, unmatured pension constituted marital property in Minnesota, because it is “more than a mere expectancy— it becomes a chose in action, a contractual right: a property interest.” (emphasis deleted).
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marital Property Ratio Based on its finding that the dissolution court made a disproportionate award of marital property and liabilities, the trial court concluded that the dissolution court intended to award respondent only 20% of the marital portion of the pension benefits
Marriage of Nemmers v. Nemmers 409 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Nemmers v. Nemmers 409 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Petschel v. Petschel 406 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Petschel v. Petschel 406 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(quoting In Re Marriage of Hunt, 78 Ill.App.3d 653, 663 , 34 Ill.Dec.
Marriage of Salstrom v. Salstrom 404 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Salstrom v. Salstrom 404 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court held that a nonvested, unmatured pension constituted marital property under Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Hanson v. Hanson 403 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hanson v. Hanson 403 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Flynn v. Flynn 402 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Flynn v. Flynn 402 N.W.2d 111 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Crace v. Crace 396 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Crace v. Crace 396 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
in which the Minnesota Supreme Court established nonvested, unmatured police officer pension benefits as marital property.