Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bormann v. Bormann, 644 N.W.2d 478.

46 citing documents.

Eric Michael Kroiss, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 478, 481 (Minn. App. 2002).
Explained In the Marriage of: Sarah Elizabeth Lavins, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Mother also relies on Bormann v. Bormann, in which we noted that “modification of support is generally retroactive to the date the moving party served notice of the motion on the responding party.”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
ility periodically” to determine whether “they can return to work,” the district court improperly placed the burden on him to show “what was currently takin g place with [his] social security disability benefits and why there was a stop loss for the derivative payment.” Caselaw is clear that t he “moving party has the burden of proof in support-modification proceedings.”
In re the Marriage of: Allan Roland Kilgore v. Ellen Lea Brockman, f/k/a Ellen Lea Kilgore, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Allan Roland Kilgore v. Ellen Lea Brockman, f/k/a Ellen Lea Kilgore, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Id.; (“Determining whether an existing support obligation is unreasonable and unfair .
In re the Custody of BJL (DOB 1/8/2018), Nicholas T. White v. Adrianna L Loesch, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Custody of BJL (DOB 1/8/2018), Nicholas T. White v. Adrianna L Loesch, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Brandt -Rucker, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Carrie Ann Roth, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Bormann v. Bormann , -81 (Minn. App. 2002).
Rebecca Ellen Bender, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-81 (Minn. App. 2002); see Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd .
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Bormann v. Bormann , d 478, 482 (Minn. App. 2002) (remanding denial of modification motion due to inadequate factual findings and observing that ruling on such motions “generally involves (but is not necessarily limited to) a comparison of the obligor’s existing obligation with what the obligation would be if it were modified”).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A modification of support is generally retroactive to the date the moving party served notice of the motion on the responding party.” (emphasis added).
In re the Marriage of: Michael James Pudlick, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Dennis J. Arvig, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-81 (Minn. App. 2002) (stating that the party seeking modification carries the burden in “support -modification proceedings”).
In re the Matter of: Bradley Joseph Patraw, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2(a) (2018); -81 (Minn. App. 2002) (stating that moving party bears burden of proof).
In re the Marriage of: Mechelle M. Lund, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bormann v. Bormann , -81 (Minn. App. 2002).
Etsegenet Setegn, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
2(a) (2016); -81 (Minn. App. 2002).
County of Ramsey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2(a) (2016); -81 (Minn. App. 2002).
A16-1612 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2(a) (2016); -81 (Minn. App. 2002).
In re the Marriage of: Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A modification of support is generally retroactive to the date the moving party served notice of the motion on the responding party.”
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2 (2016); Bormann v. Bormann , -81 (Minn. App. 2002) (support); (maintenance) (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Robert David Stoffey, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Citing Bormann v. Bormann , husband asserts that this court’s review is limited to determining whether the district court’s findings support its conclusions of law because wife did not obtain a transcript of the hearing on the contempt motion.
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: R. M. K. and K. S. F., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elio Fumagalli, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Joanna Brooks Benson, f/k/a Joanna Lee Brooks, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jacqueline Lorraine Bourgoin v. Bradley Joseph Bourgoin, County of Anoka, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jacqueline Lorraine Bourgoin v. Bradley Joseph Bourgoin, County of Anoka, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Matter of: Emily M. Pederson v. Scott H. Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Matter of: Emily M. Pederson v. Scott H. Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because no transcript of the hearing was provided, this court’s review “is limited to determining whether the findings support the district court’s conclusions of law.”
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Daria Vladimirovna Tinaza v. Justin Andrew Tinaza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Daria Vladimirovna Tinaza v. Justin Andrew Tinaza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Matter of: Karen Brys n/k/a Karen Warn v. Timothy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Terrence Reily Peters v. Deanna Lynn Peters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Matter of: Karen Brys n/k/a Karen Warn v. Timothy Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
15 (2012), the appellate courts have previously held that the modification should be retroactive to the date of notice of the motion unless the district court specifies another date supported by factual findings or a statute directs an alternate date, –83 (Minn. App. 2002).
In re the Marriage of: Terrence Reily Peters v. Deanna Lynn Peters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The moving party has the burden of proof in support-modification proceedings.” (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 304 Minn. 583, 584, ).
Marriage of Jones v. Jarvinen 814 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Marriage of Jones v. Jarvinen 814 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“The moving party has the burden of proof in support-modification proceedings.”
County of Grant v. Koser 809 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
County of Grant v. Koser 809 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In Re the Marriage of Rose v. Rose 765 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Marriage of Rose v. Rose 765 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
review denied (Minn. Aug.
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability v. Metropolitan Council 671 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability v. Metropolitan Council 671 N.W.2d 905 Minn. Ct. App. 2003