Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Beck v. Kaplan, 566 N.W.2d 723.

38 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Laura Marie Knutsen v. Peder Nels Knutsen Minn. Ct. App. 2026
28, 2005); (affirming award of need-based fees based on finding that requesting party would have to “deplete ‘the limited capital assets available to her for her retirement’” to pay fees).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
28, 2005); (affirming award of need-based fee based on finding that requesting party would have to “deplete ‘the limited capital assets available to her for her retirement’” to pay fees).
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Beck v. Kaplan, the supreme court affirmed a district court’s decision that a fee recipient did not have means to pay attorney fees because the party “would be required to deplete the limited capital assets available to her for her retirement.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The district court has “considerable discretion” in awarding attorney fees, and we will not disturb the district court’s award of attorney fees absent a clear abuse of discretion
A23-1267 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(reasoning that party requesting need-based fees need not deplete “limited capital assets”); (reasoning that requested fees were necessary for good-faith assertion of rights), aff ’d
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Beck v. Kaplan , (affirming award of need- based attorney fees on the ground that obligee otherwise “would be required to deplete the limited capital assets available to her” and noting the parties’ “disparate financial circumstances” supported affirming the maintenance award (quotation omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: Angela Marie Backman, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(affirming award of need- based 21 fees on ground that obligee otherwise “would be required to deplete the limited capital assets available to her” (quotation omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: Peter M. Boldon, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Hendrix claims that the district cour t misapplied the law by placing too much emphasis on the fact that the judgment was based on a as the guiding precedent.
In re the Marriage of: Mark Allen Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[ T]he district court considering the modification motion must appr eciate that the stipulation represents the parties’ voluntary acquiescence in an equitable settlement.” d 723, 726 (Minn. 1997).
In re the Marriage of: Dawn R. Imme, n/k/a Dawn RaNee Edwardson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that it is neither unreasonable nor unfair to hold the parties to their negotiated agreement because, at the time it was reached, it undoubtedly balanced their compromised interests).
In re the Marriage of: Jose Flores Moran, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ellen O�Mara-Meyer v. William Philip Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ellen O�Mara-Meyer v. William Philip Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The party requesting modification “must not only demonstrate the existence of a substantial change of circumstances, but is also required to show that the change has the effect of rendering the original maintenance award both unreasonable and unfair.”
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Roger Alan Roy v. Bonnie LaMay Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Roger Alan Roy v. Bonnie LaMay Roy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
In Re the Marriage of: Susan Kay Schneider v. Michael John Schneider, Lyon County, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Re the Marriage of: Susan Kay Schneider v. Michael John Schneider, Lyon County, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(affirming fee award where party requesting attorney fees could satisfy fee obligation only by depleting retirement assets and where parties had “disparate financial circumstances”).
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Curtis v. Christopher John Hanna Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Curtis v. Christopher John Hanna Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Supreme Court has “cautioned the district court to exercise its considerable discretion carefully and only reluctantly when it is faced with a request to alter the terms of an agreement which was negotiated by the parties.”
In re the Marriage of: Heather Santilli Gamble v. John Stebbins Gamble Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Heather Santilli Gamble v. John Stebbins Gamble Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Evans v. Evans 672 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Evans v. Evans 672 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Karon, d at 504 (noting that stipulations are “carefully drawn compromises which affect property distribution, real and personal, as well as future income”); (cautioning that trial court is “to exercise its considerable discretion carefully and only reluctantly when it is faced with a request to alter the terms of an agreement which was negotiated by the parties”) (citations omitted).
Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina 624 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina 624 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(affirming attorney fees award, where statute’s language was apparently not at issue, citing, among other things, "the parties' disparate financial circumstances”).
Kemp v. Kemp 608 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kemp v. Kemp 608 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Hughes v. Hughley 569 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Marriage of Hughes v. Hughley 569 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 1997