Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Filkins v. Filkins, 347 N.W.2d 526.

65 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Robert Thomas Brown, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
706, 712 (Minn. App. 1996); rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 1986); -29 (Minn. App. 1984) (concluding as a matter of first impression that debts are apportionable as property 11 under the definition of marital property in the precursor to Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd.
A20-1261 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Our precedent establishes that attorney fees acquired in a marital dissolution “are not part of the marital estate, and thus are not apportionable as property.” Bone, d at 452; see also Filkins v. Filkins , (stating that “[a]ttorney’s fees for the dissolution are not part of the marital estate” and “should not therefore be considered” in a property division).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Filkins v. Filkins , (M inn.
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–29 (Minn. App. 1984) (affirming the apportionment of $32,000 of debt to husband and $4,000 of debt to wife where most of the debts were entered into by husband for his own purposes).
Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain 615 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain 615 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Lenzmeier v. Lenzmeier, 304 Minn. 568, 571 , -29 (Minn.App.1984); (holding that, in equity, the district court may apportion all the debt to one party even though the other party receives the benefit of payment).
Marriage of Bone v. Bone 438 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Bone v. Bone 438 N.W.2d 448 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Foster v. Childers 416 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Foster v. Childers 416 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
this court held that “[ajttorney’s fees for the dissolution are not part of the marital estate.” Therefore, they were not to be considered as apportionable property in a property settlement.
Marriage of Dorweiler v. Dorweiler 413 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Southwell v. Southwell 413 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Dorweiler v. Dorweiler 413 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
II A court has broad discretion in dividing marital property, and if the division is equitable, there is no requirement that it be equal.
Marriage of Southwell v. Southwell 413 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of O'Donnell v. O'Donnell 412 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of O'Donnell v. O'Donnell 412 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Melina v. Melina 411 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Melina v. Melina 411 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lenz v. Lenz 409 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lenz v. Lenz 409 N.W.2d 68 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
DISCUSSION I Debts are apportionable in a dissolution, and the court has discretion to award debts to one party only.
Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter 395 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter 395 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(debts awarded to party who has incurred them for his own purposes); (not abuse of discretion to award debt based on relative ability to pay and uncertainty of party’s obligation to his parents).
Schuck v. Schuck 390 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schuck v. Schuck 390 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Wilson v. Wilson 388 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Wilson v. Wilson 388 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital property equally between the parties, or in apportioning to Wilson the debts he incurred for his own purposes
Marriage of Hattstrom v. Hattstrom 385 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hattstrom v. Hattstrom 385 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“Debts are apportionable under Minnesota’s statute.”
Justis v. Justis 384 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Justis v. Justis 384 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Schultz v. Schultz 383 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hemingway v. Hemingway 383 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hemingway v. Hemingway 383 N.W.2d 697 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Schultz v. Schultz 383 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Although she recognizes that liens have been approved, she argues that respondent should pay her her share of the equity of the home immediately.
Marriage of Tailor-Navsaria v. Tailor-Navsaria 374 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Tailor-Navsaria v. Tailor-Navsaria 374 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(citing Posselt v. Posselt, 271 Minn. 575 , ).
Marriage of Wehner v. Wehner 374 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Wehner v. Wehner 374 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Andersen v. Andersen 374 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Charlson v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Andersen v. Andersen 374 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Charlson v. Charlson 374 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Plaster v. Plaster 373 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Plaster v. Plaster 373 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Frederiksen v. Frederiksen 368 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Frederiksen v. Frederiksen 368 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
we held that marital debts may be apportioned between the parties under the same principle as marital property.
Marriage of Goar v. Goar 368 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1985