Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Thomas v. Thomas, 407 N.W.2d 124.

35 citing documents.

In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
127 (Minn. App. 1987) (citing Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“Any amount taken from marital property to pay one party ’s attorney’s fees should be accounted for .
Distinguished In re the Marriage of: Richard Leo Bassing, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
and the other party compensated in the distribution.” Baker v. Baker, 75 -54 (Minn. 2008) ().
In re the Marriage of: Susan Lee Wood, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Damian Loth, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 124, 126 (Minn. App. 1987).
In re the Marriage of: Mandeep Singh Sodhi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
and the other party compensated in the distribution.”
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Baker court also quoted approvingly from this court’s concluding that “[a]ny amount taken from marital property to pay one party’s attorney’s fees should be accounted for on remand and the other party compensated in the distribution.” Id.
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
and the other party compensated in the distribution.”
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
and the other party compensated in the distribution.”
Redleaf v. Redleaf 807 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Redleaf v. Redleaf 807 N.W.2d 731 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(permitting the withholding of interest on a payment schedule for the distribution of marital *735 property, but requiring the district court to support its decision with findings).
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
isputes, we suggest that courts using marital liens include in their orders: (1) the value of the debt to be secured by the lien, in terms of either an absolute dollar amount or a percentage of the equity or ultimate sale price of the property; (2) the applicable interest rate, if any, which should be justified in the accounting of the court’s division of the marital assets, (requiring specific findings to explain decision not to require payment of interest); (3) an ascertainable date of maturit
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 753 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 753 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2008
In Thomas v. Thomas, the court of appeals held that “[a]ny amount taken from marital property to pay one party’s attorney’s fees should be accounted for on remand and the other party compensated in the distribution.”
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
The district court’s conclusion not only is inconsistent with our case law, -28 (Minn. App.1987) (“Any amount taken from marital property to pay one party’s attorney’s fees should be accounted for ...
Brodsky v. Brodsky 733 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Brodsky v. Brodsky 733 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(when court delays payment of property settlement or allows payment over time, it must require payment of interest or explain why it did not do so).
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. State Investment Board 677 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
which states, “[w]hen conflicting opinions of expert witnesses have a reasonable basis in fact, the trier of fact must decide who is right,” appellants contend that the district court had a responsibility to resolve the conflicting experts’ analysis and that its failure to do so was prejudicial a
Marriage of Rogers v. Rogers 606 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State, County of St. Louis Ex Rel. Rimolde v. Tinker 601 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State, County of St. Louis Ex Rel. Rimolde v. Tinker 601 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(court should not base net income findings on documentation from prior year when obligor has submitted more recent income information); (same).
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 533 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 533 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
County of Nicollet v. Haakenson 497 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
County of Nicollet v. Haakenson 497 N.W.2d 611 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Merrick v. Merrick 440 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Merrick v. Merrick 440 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1989