Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Fink v. Fink, 366 N.W.2d 340.

28 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“When applying these factors, a court must balance the financial needs of [obligee] and her ability to meet those needs against the financial condition of [obligor].”
In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When applying these factors, a court must balance the financial needs of [wife] and her ability to meet those needs against the financial condition of [husband].”
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“A trial court’s determination of the amount and duration of spousal maintenance is final unless the court abused the discretion accorded to it.” ()); (“The standard of review for an appellate court
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
2(a); (expl aining that courts’ consideration of a spouse’s financial resources under this factor includes “income generated by liquid assets”).
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
In Fink v. Fink, in which the district court failed to consider roughly $310 of monthly income generated from income-producing assets, we stated that “[district] courts are authorized to look beyond the bare needs of the spouse seeking maintenance.”
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This statute “requires the courts to consider financial resources, which include income generated by liquid assets.”
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
income generated by liquid assets.” (emphasis added); see also Lyon, d at 22 n.1 (considering “interest income” that obligee would receive by investing marital- 6 property); (similar); Rask, d at 853–54 (reasoning t
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See, (court should take interest income which may be generated from marital property award into account when calculating spousal maintenance).
Dougherty v. Dougherty 443 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Dougherty v. Dougherty 443 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso 417 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso 417 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
However, “[t]he period over which maintenance is awarded must bear a reasonable relationship to its underlying basis — to augment the income of the spouse seeking maintenance in order to meet her reasonable financial needs.” -43 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).
Marriage of Sward v. Sward 410 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Sward v. Sward 410 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lynch v. Lynch 411 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lynch v. Lynch 411 N.W.2d 263 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
(investment principal normally not required to be invaded to satisfy monthly financial needs).
Marriage of Fick v. Fick 375 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Fick v. Fick 375 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Napier v. Napier 374 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Napier v. Napier 374 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Erlandson at 38 ; McGowan at 360 .
Marriage of Elwell v. Elwell 372 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Elwell v. Elwell 372 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1985