Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Beede v. Law, 400 N.W.2d 831.

28 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Marriage of Melius v. Melius 765 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
the Minnesota Supreme Court extended this holding to the modification of decrees for child support and spousal maintenance, stating that when an obligor’s income changed as a result of good-faith actions, “the child and the separated spouse should share in the hardship as they would have had the family remained together.” (remanding a district court’s modification of child support, which was based on a finding of earning capacity, because the court failed to find that calculating the obligor’s i
Marriage of Fulmer v. Fulmer 594 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of Fulmer v. Fulmer 594 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Marriage of Gorz v. Gorz 552 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Marriage of Gorz v. Gorz 552 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Under case law, income may be imputed when it is “impracticable to determine.”
Roatch v. Puera 534 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Roatch v. Puera 534 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
*565 94 (Minn.App.1992); -36 (Minn.App.1987).
Johnson v. O'NEILL 461 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Johnson v. O'NEILL 461 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Finch v. Marusich 457 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Finch v. Marusich 457 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(earning capacity not an appropriate measure of income where obli-gor has not unjustifiably self-limited his income).
COUNTY OF MORRISON ON BEHALF OF GUTZMAN v. Watland 448 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
COUNTY OF MORRISON ON BEHALF OF GUTZMAN v. Watland 448 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Curtis v. Curtis 442 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Curtis v. Curtis 442 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
However, increased earning capacity is not an appropriate measure of income unless “(1) it is *179 impracticable to determine an obligor’s actual income [which does not apply here] or (2) the obligor’s actual income is unjustifiably self-limited.” Hedburg, d at 47 ().
Marriage of Rohrman v. Moore 423 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Rohrman v. Moore 423 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Veit v. Veit 413 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Veit v. Veit 413 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hedburg v. Hedburg 412 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hedburg v. Hedburg 412 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
8-month program to obtain additional skills [and] does have the earning capacity to earn child support in the amount currently ordered of $245.00 per month.” As a guideline for support, earning capacity is not appropriate as a measure of income unless “(1) it is impracticable to determine an obligator’s actual income or (2) the obligor’s actual income is unjustifiably self-limited.”
Redding v. Oldewartel 411 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Redding v. Oldewartel 411 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-58 (Minn.1981); courts have inherent power to grant equitable relief in dissolution actions); (trial court can grant relief in dissolution cases that is required to justly deal with interests of the parties).
Marriage of Lewis v. Lewis 410 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Lewis v. Lewis 410 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 403 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 403 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(trial court’s discretion must be exercised within legislated limits); (trial court’s necessary powers in dissolution cases are limited by statutory standards and procedures).