Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Discipline of White, 388 N.W.2d 713.

35 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Chriss O. Latterell v. Mary Jean Latterell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And the supreme court has stated that “motions to modify divorce decrees brought under [r]ule 60.02 should not be entertained by the district courts.” n.1 (Minn. 1986).
In re the Matter of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Lindsey v. Lindsey , see also Blattner v. 8 Blattner, (citing to this provision of Lindsey), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Brad Allen Friesz, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
.” (emphasis added)); n.1 (Minn. 1986) (“[M]otions to modify divorce decrees brought under Rule 60.02 should not be entertained by the district courts.”).
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 Marriage of: Dontrell Valerie Thornton v. Herbert Thornton, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Although rule 60.02(a) does not technically apply to marriage-dissolution decrees, n.1 (Minn. 1986), cases citing the rule can be used when applying Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Heather Santilli Gamble v. John Stebbins Gamble Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Duress implies taking advantage of a party’s mental or emotional condition, –16 (Minn. 1986), or “undue pressure” coupled with abusive behavior, see Hestekin, d at 310.
In re the Guardianship of O'Brien 847 N.W.2d 710 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
754, 755 (1938) (quotation omitted); (“Mental capacity [to enter into a contract] exists when a person can fairly understand the matter he is considering.”), affd as modified
In Re the Welfare of the Children of R.A.J. 769 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A court has the inherent power to set aside a final judgment if it determines “that such a judgment amounts to fraud upon the court.”
Alam v. Chowdhury 764 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
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 , (excusable mistake or misunderstanding); Fagerstrom v. Cotton
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 ap
Marriage of Sanborn v. Sanborn 503 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
2 (1990), “A finding of fraud on the court and the administration of justice must be made under the peculiar facts of each case.” Maranda, d at 164 ().
Pacific Mutual Door Co. v. James 465 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
29 *699 (Minn.App.1985), aff'd as modified
Cadle v. Cadle 457 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Marriage of Maranda v. Maranda 449 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1989
this court considered a similar motion.
Berens v. Berens 443 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Additionally, we note that Joanne did not mention or contest in her brief the trial court’s or Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Glorvigen v. Glorvigen 438 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Appellant also contends that the overall property division constituted a fraud upon the court
Knut. Co. v. Knutson Construction Co. 433 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Maranda v. Maranda 435 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Marriage of Steffan 423 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Angier v. Angier 415 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Kuchenmeister v. Kuchenmeister 414 N.W.2d 538 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
716 & n. 1 (Minn.1986)
Marriage of Merickel v. Merickel 414 N.W.2d 208 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The trial court held there was no subject matter jurisdiction to vacate or modify the judgment under Rule 60.02 which was decided shortly after the hearing.
Marriage of Blattner v. Blattner 411 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Trial courts have inherent power to set aside or modify a divorce decree, where the court determines that “such a judgment amounts to a fraud upon the court.” 1
Marriage of Wange v. Wange 410 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
60.02 is not applicable in dissolution cases, the trial court properly stated the requirements for vacation of a
Marriage of Manore v. Manore 408 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
in denying appellant’s request to vacate the dissolution judgment.
Marriage of Yeager v. Yeager 405 N.W.2d 519 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bredemann v. Bredemann, 253 Minn. 21, 24
Beede v. Law 400 N.W.2d 831 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Moir v. Moir 400 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court reiterated its holding in Bredemann v. Bredemann, 253 Minn. 21 , that dissolution judgments are excluded from the provisions of Minn.R.Civ.P.
Marriage of Clay v. Clay 397 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Volkman v. Volkman 394 N.W.2d 869 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Adams v. Adams 393 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Lindsey v. Lind *510 sey, the supreme court held that the language in Rule 60.02, which excludes dissolution judgments from its purview, prohibits courts from applying Rule 60.02 to any portion of a dissolution judgment: In the future * * * motions to modify divorce decrees brought under Rule 60.02 should not be entertained by the
Hennepin County Welfare Board v. Kolkind 391 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Kroeplin v. Haugen 390 N.W.2d 872 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Saturnini v. Saturnini 390 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A trial court may only set aside a judgment in a dissolution decree “where it determines that such a judgment amounts to fraud upon the court.” see also Bredemann v. Bredemann, 253 Minn. 21, 25