Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Maranda v. Maranda, 449 N.W.2d 158.

70 citing documents.

Eric Michael Kroiss, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Fraud on the court is distinct from fraud, and involves “an intentional course of material misrepresentation or non-disclosure, having the result of misleading the court and opposing counsel and making the property settlement grossly unfair.”
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Kyle Ryan Johnson, A v. Danielle Marie Gilbert, B, Appellant.... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Kyle Ryan Johnson, A v. Danielle Marie Gilbert, B, Appellant.... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2; (“The significance of a finding of fraud on the court is that it eliminates the time restriction for bringing a motion to vacate a judgment.”).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. 2022
1 (2020) (addressing division of marital property upon dissolution)
In re the Marriage of: Brad Allen Friesz, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n.1 (Minn. 1989) (“[P]ost -Lindsey motions to vacate should be brought under Minn. Stat. § 518.145.”).
In re the Marriage of: Robert H. Brandtjen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
8 See Maranda v. Maranda , (holding that a fraud on the court as “an intentional course of material misrepresentation or non-disclosure, having the result of misleading the court and opposing counsel and making the property settlement 8 Although a motion to reopen a judgment for ordinary fraud must be brought within one
In re the Marriage of: Tammy Kay Holleman, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
11, 2001) ; 5 (Minn. 1989) (providing that a fraud on the court “eliminates the time restriction for bringing a motion to vacate a judgment”).
Landmark Bank, N.A., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
3 The elements of a fraud -on-the-court claim are “[1] an intentional course of material misrepresentation or non -disclosure, [2] having the result of misleading the court and opposing counsel and [3] making the property settlement grossly unfair.”
In re the Marriage of: Donald William McIsaac, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Alan Fish, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A party commits fraud upon the court if he or she engages in “an intentional course of material misrepresentation or non-disclosure, having the result of misleading the court and opposing counsel and making the settlement grossly unfair .”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
district court judge was obligated to recuse himself from the case, or that the prosecutor 4 Fraud on the court is a doctrine that allows a party to move to set aside a judgment based on “an intentional course of material misrepresentation or non-disclosure, having the result of misleading the court and opposing counsel.” See Maranda v. Maranda , d 158, 165 (Minn. 1989).
A18-1408 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Maranda v. Maranda , -65 (Minn. 1989).
KCP Hastings, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota 931 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2019
KCP Hastings, LLC v. Cnty. of Dakota 931 N.W.2d 773 Minn. 2019
*785 Maranda v. Maranda , , 164 (Minn. 1989).
In re the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: I. I. and J. G., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Abdiaziz H. Hirsi, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-65 (Minn. 1989) (discussing fraud on the court).
In re the Marriage of: Rachel Ann Wexler, f/k/a Rachel Gerr, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Keith Jonathan Hempel, II, Decedent, Tobin Hempel and Joshua D. Krsnak, personal representatives … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Maranda v. Maranda , (noting the existence of “a difference between ordinary fraud and ‘fraud on the court.’”).
In re the Marriage of: Peggy Ann Doheny, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(concluding that six- year delay was “the outer limits of re asonableness” of time for moving to reopen a dissolution judgment for fraud on the court).3 Reversed.
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Kristin Gorney, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
settlement grossly unfair.”
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
& n.1 (Minn. 1989) (citation omitted).
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
Fraud on the court requires a showing of intentional material misrepresentation or nondisclosure, which misleads the court and the opposing party and “mak[es] the property settlement grossly unfair.”
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marriage of Gossman v. Gossman 847 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Alam v. Chowdhury 764 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Alam v. Chowdhury 764 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
2 (noting that the subdivision’s list of reasons to reopen a dissolution judgment does not limit the court’s power “to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court”); (distinguishing fraud from fraud on the court); -30 (Minn.App.2001) (same), review denied (Minn. Sept.
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
But under limited circumstances, a party may move to set aside a judgment and decree after this one-year limitation if there is proof that the nonmoving party committed “fraud on the court.”
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Szarzynski v. Szarzynski 732 N.W.2d 285 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Ramsey County v. Suggs 653 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Ramsey County v. Suggs 653 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, (stipulated divorce decrees are favored); (noting that stipulations are favored).
Marriage of Antone v. Antone 645 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2002
Marriage of Antone v. Antone 645 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2002
Doering v. Doering 629 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Doering v. Doering 629 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 621 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(vacation of judgment supported where, among other things, wife denied access to parties’ finances).
Marriage of Hestekin v. Hestekin 587 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Hestekin v. Hestekin 587 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See, , 165—66 (Minn.1989) (fraud); (fraud in taking advantage of spouse’s mental and emotional condition); Simons v. Schiek’s, Inc., 275 Minn. 132 , (mutual mistake); Thunderbird Motel Corp. v. County of Hennepin, 289 Minn. 239 , (1971
Marriage of Shirk v. Shirk 561 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Shirk v. Shirk 561 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 1997
See, (setting aside a dissolution decree based on a sufficient showing of fraud on the court, where wife suffered from incapacitating mental illness); (concluding *523 that a stipulation was “grossly unfair,” making it impossible for the trial court to approve the settlement).
In re C.M.A. 557 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re CMA 557 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1996