Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 615 N.W.2d 405.

49 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Debts, like assets, are apportionable, and each division of property is considered in the light of the particular facts of that case.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Ryan Russell Preusse v. Amanda Jayne Preusse Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Ryan Russell Preusse v. Amanda Jayne Preusse Minn. Ct. App. 2025
2(c); -12 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The district court excluded that amount, finding that any improvements to the property would be “discretionary” and thus “not maintenance of the property.” The reasonableness of a party’s expense for spousal-maintenance purposes is evaluated “in light of the marital standard of living.” -12 (Minn. App. 2000).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
20, 1984); Chamberlain v. Chamberlain , (same), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Tabitha Ann Sanborn, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Debts, like assets, are apportionable, and each division of property is considered in the light of the particular facts of that case.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: William T. Bienemann, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(noting that credible testimony can 3 The parties moved into husband’s inherited Michigan home upon their marriage in 2000.
In re the Marriage of: Marcia A. Hammond, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The way the spousal- maintenance statute is written, “the long-standing affluent lifestyle of the parties is an appropriate factor for the district court to consider.” review denied 12 (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Peterka , d at 358; see Chamberlain v. Chamberlain , -122 (Minn. App. 2000) (discussing the importance of the marital standard of living in setting a maintenance award), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Dia Eldin Jubara, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Ronald Lee Henrichs, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
7 -12 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Supervised Estate of: Brian Scott Short, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that when evidence supports the district court ’s discretionary determination, a reviewing court must affirm even if it would have reached a different conclusion), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain
In re the Marriage of: Amy Marie Causton, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Antone v. Antone , Chamberlain v. Chamberlain , review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Terry Anne Boggs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Oct.
A17-1036 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Dennis Lee Polla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Polla argues that gambling should not be included in Chan’s entertainment budget, review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Oct.
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
review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Kerry S. Spolum v. Michael J. D'Amato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kerry S. Spolum v. Michael J. D'Amato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied 10 (Minn. Oct.
In re the Trust Agreement of D. Robert Sykes. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Trust Agreement of D. Robert Sykes. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that district court did not abuse its discretion even though a “different result is supportable, and we might have reached a different result”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-12 (Minn. App. 2000) (affirming award of permanent maintenance based in large part upon the long-standing affluent standard of living established during the parties’ marriage, despite the fact that it was beyond the parties’ means, noting that the maintenance statute requires consideration of the marital stand
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn R. Rauworth, n/k/a Kathryn R. Kendall v. Barry L. Rauworth Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn R. Rauworth, n/k/a Kathryn R. Kendall v. Barry L. Rauworth Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but reviewing courts defer to the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.” –13 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld Hare, n/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld Hare, n/k/a Kathryn Suzanne Neufeld v. Robert Russell Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Marriage of Kerr v. Kerr 770 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Kerr v. Kerr 770 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“[increases in value of nonmarital property remain non-marital if shown to be attributable solely to market forces or conditions, such as simple appreciation in value of an asset.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Lee v. Lee 749 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Lee v. Lee 749 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
1, 2(c) (2006); -12 (Minn.App.2000) (discussing importance of the marital standard of living in determining maintenance recipient’s reasonable monthly expenses), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In support of his argument that the mere ability to control a financial advisor does not make the appreciation of nonmarital funds managed by that advisor active appreciation, review denied (Minn. Oct.
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating “[t]he purpose of the 1985 amendments was to eliminate the negative presumption against permanent maintenance.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian 716 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian 716 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
3(c) (2004) (providing that “[ujnpublished opinions of the court of appeals are not precedential”); , 411 n. 1 (Minn.App.2000) (stating that “[u]npublished opinions are of limited value in deciding an appeal”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Marriage of Sirek v. Sirek 693 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Sirek v. Sirek 693 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka 675 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Marriage of Peterka v. Peterka 675 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
1(a), (b), 2(c) (2002) (requiring district court to determine recipient’s need for maintenance as well as amount of maintenance in light of parties’ marital standard of living); -11 (Minn.App.2000) (discussing importance of marital standard of living in addressing maintenance recipient’s need for maintenance), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Walswick-Boutwell v. Boutwell 663 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Walswick-Boutwell v. Boutwell 663 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
ANALYSIS “District courts have broad discretion over the division of marital property, and we will not disturb the division on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.