Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Redmond v. Redmond, 594 N.W.2d 272.

35 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Julie Karen Johnson v. Thomas Francis Johnson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Laura Marie Knutsen v. Peder Nels Knutsen Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In Re the Marriage of Joshua Laurance Patterson v. Rebecca Marie Patterson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Jeneen Marie Molldrem v. Kevin Daniel Molldrem Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Following final disposition of the parties’ marital property in a dissolution judgment, a district court has discretion to issue orders to clarify, implement, or enforce the terms of the judgment, but it generally may not modify the property settlement, d 272, 275 (Minn. App. 1999).
In the Marriage of: Aimee Lynn Speier v. Gary Joseph Speier, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
1a.10 These fees may be warranted, for example, if a party takes positions that are “duplicitous and disingenuous.”
In re the Marriage of: John Andrew Sinnott v. Kelli Anne Sinnott, n/k/a Kelli Anne Erickson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
An award of conduct-based attorney fees is appropriate when a party takes positions that are “duplicitous and disingenuous and have had the effect of further delaying distribution, lengthening [the] litigation, and increasing the expense of [the] proceedings.” Redmond v. Redmond
In the Marriage of: Allison Baron Bonnett v. Theodore James Bonnett Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Sydney Reed Lesch v. John Patrick Lesch Minn. Ct. App. 2025
An award of conduct-based attorney fees is appropriate if a party takes positions that are “duplicitous and disingenuous and have had the effect of further delaying distribution, lengthening litigation, and increasing the expense of these proceedings.”
In re the Matter of: Rodney Tristan Miller (Deceased) v. Pamela Marie Spera FKA Pamela Marie Miller, Maria … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
see also Minn. Stat. § 518.145 (2022) (providing for reopening of a dissolution decree for specified reasons within a year of entry of the judgment and decree).
In re the Marriage of: Edward Luke Lazzaro v. Susan Louise Coen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We agree with husband.1 While a district court may not modify a final property division except in limited circumstances not applicable here, “it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.” see Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Sarah Mae DeVille v. Darren Lee Hickey Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Sarah Mae DeVille v. Darren Lee Hickey Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Deborah Kay Schadewald, n/k/a Deborah Kay DeJong v. Gregory John Schadewald Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Amanda Jo Briggs v. Kent Stewart Mitchell Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2020
lengthening [the] 5 litigation, and increasing the expense of [the] proceedings.” Redmond v. Redmond
Erin Elisabeth Dancour, n/k/a Erin Elisabeth Meyers v. Elie E. Dancour Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the matter of: Eric Thurman Clinton v. Gabriela Kathleen Linder Minn. Ct. App. 2020
lengthening [the] litigation, and increasing the expense of [the] proceedings.”
In re the Marriage of: Beth Marie Delzer v. Randy Edward Delzer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
He argues that his substantive rights were affected “because the terms of the decree are property and property awards are final.” “While a [district] court may not modify a final property division, it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.” Redmond v. Redmond
In the Matter of: The Trusteeship Created by the Port Authority of the City of St. Paul Relating … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Bakken v. Helgeson , (holding that whether a transaction constitutes a “sale” for purpose of triggering a duty to pay in a dissolution judgment is a question of fact) (); see also Ministers Life Cas.
In re the Marriage of: Praveen Prabhakaran v. Vadivazhaghi Kannan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Bradley Jude Domagala v. Laura Lynn Domagala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(affirming award of conduct -based attorney fees based in part on party’s “noncooperation and obstinate position”).
In re the Marriage of: Pamela J. Atkinson n/k/a Pamela J. Kraker v. Thomas E. Atkinson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ann Summers v. Jonathon Roger Summers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ann Summers v. Jonathon Roger Summers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A district court “may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.”
In re the Marriage of: Amy Christine Olmsted, f/k/a Amy Christine Zarbok v. William Scott Zarbok Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Amy Christine Olmsted, f/k/a Amy Christine Zarbok v. William Scott Zarbok Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“‘While a [district] court may not modify a final property division, it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.’” (alteration in original) ().
In the Matter of the Cross Application of Anthony E. Sampair and Laurie K. Sampair to register the … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Cross Application of Anthony E. Sampair and Laurie K. Sampair to register the … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
App. P. 138 where an appellant’s positions have been “duplicitous and disingenuous and have had the effect of further delaying distribution, lengthening this litigation, and increasing the expense of these proceedings.”
Nelson v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Nelson v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“While a [district] court may not modify a final property division, it may issue orders to implement, enforce, or clarify the provisions of a decree, so long as it does not change the parties’ substantive rights.”
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(reviewing decision that transaction was sale as finding of fact subject to reversal only if clearly erroneous).
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 627 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 627 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
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
Cf. Gales, d at 423 (denying attorney fees on appeal because appellant’s arguments in the appeal were “neither frivolous nor asserted in bad faith”); (awarding conduct-based attorney fees on appeal because positions taken by appellant were “duplicitous and disingenuous and have had the effect of further delaying distribution, lengthening this litigation and increasing the expense of these proceedings”)..