Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Duffney v. Duffney, 625 N.W.2d 839.

23 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(failing to include $25 per month of income was de minimis error); Risk ex rel.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
16, 2010); (holding that understating father’s monthly income by $20 to $25 was “de minimis and does not warrant a remand”).
In re the Marriage of: Daniela Tate v. Daniel Lee Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Daniela Tate v. Daniel Lee Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When the district court erroneously calculates a party’s income, this court can decline to remand if the error is “de minimis.”
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Jo Pemberton, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(concluding that a de minimis error does not warrant a remand).
In re the Marriage of: John Alex Walker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, (district court’s failure to include $25 per month of income); Risk ex rel.
In re the Marriage of: Martin Sean Schmidt, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Julie Ann Schmidt, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
16, 2010); Duffney v. Duffney , (holding that the district court’s failure to include $20 to $25 in the calculation of a party’s monthly income was “de minimis and does not warrant a remand”).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of: Tamara Lynn Kriesel, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Duffney v. Duffney , (declining to remand for de minimis error) .
In re the Matter of: Peter H. Stier, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, e.g., Hesse, d at 105; d 839, 843 (Minn. App. 2001) ; Wibbens v. Wibbens , see also Risk ex rel.
John Frederick Stolte, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2016) (defining “gross income” for purposes of spousal maintenance to mean “periodic payment to an individual”); -43 (Minn. App. 2001) (concluding that proceeds from sale of asset was not income for purposes of child support).
In re the Marriage of: Joanna Brooks Benson, f/k/a Joanna Lee Brooks, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-43 (Minn. App. 2001) (concluding that proceeds of sale of timber from obligor’s land was not income for purposes of child support).
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: William David Wilder v. Michelle R. Wilder Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Generally, if a payment is periodic, it is income.”); (noting that dependable sources of income may properly be included in an income calculation).
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
13 Generally, gross income “includes any form of periodic payment to an individual.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a) (2014).3 The cyclic or periodic nature of the receipt of funds is critical to classifying that receipt of funds as “income.” d 839, 843 (Minn. App. 2001).
Hubbard County Health & Human Services v. Zacher 742 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Hubbard County Health & Human Services v. Zacher 742 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(“Generally, if a payment is periodic it is income.”).
Marriage of Schlichting v. Paulus 632 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Schlichting v. Paulus 632 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
at 821 n. 19; , 842 n. 1 (Minn.App.2001) (declining to comment on the propriety of the assumption that the Hortis/Valento formula is proper in a case of joint physical custody).
Marriage of Davis v. Davis 631 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Marriage of Davis v. Davis 631 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, , 842 n. 1 (Minn.App.2001) (declining to comment on the propriety of the assumption that the Hortis/Valento formula is proper in a joint physical custody case); (stating appellate courts generally address only issues presented to and decided by the district co