Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Bledsoe v. Bledsoe, 344 N.W.2d 892.

76 citing documents.

Marriage of Gerlich v. Gerlich 379 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Gerlich v. Gerlich 379 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Prebil v. Juergens 378 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Prebil v. Juergens 378 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Fitch v. Fitch, 298 Minn. 529, 530 , (Minn.Ct.App.
Marriage of Thielbar v. Defiel 378 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Meier v. Connelly 378 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Meier v. Connelly 378 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Modification of the child support provisions of a divorce decree is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed in the absence of “an abuse of discretion in the sense that the order is arbitrary or unreasonable or without evidentiary support.” (quoting Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190, 193 , ).
Marriage of Thielbar v. Defiel 378 N.W.2d 643 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Appellant has the burden of proof, (citation omitted), and did not carry it.
Marriage of Swanson v. Swanson 372 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Swanson v. Swanson 372 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(citing LeFebvre v. LeFebvre, 305 Minn. 195, 200 , ).
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 370 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Miller v. Miller 370 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
which also concerned a request for forgiveness of arrear-ages, also indicated: The moving party * * * must show 1) a substantial change in circumstances, and 2) that none of his past failures to pay were willful.
Eckholm v. Eckholm 368 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Eckholm v. Eckholm 368 N.W.2d 386 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Stangel v. Stangel 366 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Stangel v. Stangel 366 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to forgive child support arrearages, and will not be reversed but for “an abuse of discretion in the sense that the order is arbitrary or unreasonable or without evi-dentiary support.” , (Minn.App.1984), quoting Smith v. Smith, 282 Minn. 190, 193
Marriage of Covington v. Markes 366 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Covington v. Markes 366 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Juelfs v. Juelfs 359 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Juelfs v. Juelfs 359 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State on Behalf of Johnson v. Howell 359 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State on Behalf of Johnson v. Howell 359 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Kelzenberg v. Kelzenberg 352 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Kelzenberg v. Kelzenberg 352 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The moving party has the burden of proof and must show: “1) a substantial change in circumstances, and 2) that none of his past failures to pay were willful.”
In Re the Marriage of Braun v. Braun 350 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Marriage of Braun v. Braun 350 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1984