Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Harding v. Harding, 620 N.W.2d 920.

22 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Todd Charles Bork v. Carolyn Mitsu Bork Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Todd Charles Bork v. Carolyn Mitsu Bork Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The moving party must present more than merely a new set of circumstances or an unforeseen change of a known circumstance to reopen a judgment and decree.” -31 (Minn. App. 2007) (-34 (Minn. App. 2001), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
A21-1725 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minnesota Statutes section 518.145, subdivision 2(5), applies when there is injustice in the prospective application of a divorce decree “due to the development of circumstances substantially altering the information on a topic that was accepted earlier, when the subject was addressed in a marital- termination agreement and in an ensuing judgment.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Anne Kiberu-Kalema, n/k/a/ Brenda Anne Kiberu, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
) acted diligently after notice of entry of the judgment; and (4) demonstrated “that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.” 3 Hinz v. 3 “Because of the similarities between [Minnesota] rule [of civil procedure] 60.02 and [Minn. Stat. § 518.145,] subdivision 2, cases citing to rule 60.02 are often used when addressing the application of the statute.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Mary Ann Fenlon, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Matter of: David Allen Engh, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2; -23 (Minn. App. 2001) (stating that Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Subdivision 2(5) applies “when injustice in the prospective application of a divorce decree is due to the development of circumstances substantially altering the information on a topic that was accepted earlier, when the subject was addressed in a marital -termination agreement and in an ensuing judgment.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” Subdivision 2(5) applies “when injustice in the prospective application of a divorce decree is due to the development of circumstances substantially a ltering the information on a topic that was accepted earlier, when the subj ect was addressed in a marita l-termination agreement and in an ensuing judgment.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marria ge of: Marla Jean Knapp v. James Alan Knapp 883 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marria ge of: Marla Jean Knapp v. James Alan Knapp 883 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
−23 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Apr.
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
This provision “is not a catchall provision.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Odelia Castaneda Ortega v. Selwin Ortega Romero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Odelia Castaneda Ortega v. Selwin Ortega Romero Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When a divorce judgment is entered pursuant to a stipulation, the stipulation merges into the judgment and decree and ‘finality becomes of central importance.’” ().
Thomas Joseph Daley v. Anne Elizabeth Daley, n/k/a Anne E. Patrick-Daley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thomas Joseph Daley v. Anne Elizabeth Daley, n/k/a Anne E. Patrick-Daley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Because of the similarities between rule 60.02 and subdivision 2, cases citing to rule 60.02 are often used when addressing the application of the statute.”), review denied (Minn. Apr.
In re the Marriage of: Stephen Joseph Moore v. Lisa Jo Jacobson, f/k/a Lisa Jo Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Stephen Joseph Moore v. Lisa Jo Jacobson, f/k/a Lisa Jo Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Thompson v. Thompson 739 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Relying on Harding v. Harding, the district court observed that “Minnesota courts allow re-opening of a judgment by reason of mutual mistake.” -24 (Minn.App.2001) (remanding to district court for reopening of judgment and decree to determine equitable distribution of corporate stock when postjudgment income-tax determination substantially altered the value of principal material assets of parties, which had been negotiated in marital-termination agreement
Evans v. Evans 672 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Evans v. Evans 672 N.W.2d 232 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. Apr.