Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Nolan v. Nolan, 354 N.W.2d 509.

22 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In arguing that the negative equity assigned to the homestead would not affect wife in light of the anticipated satisfaction of the mortgage by wife’s mother, rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Nolan v. Nolan, we held that “speculative or contingent liabilities should not be considered in determining the net marital estate.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
In re the Marriage of: Jonathon Henry Ortner, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Findings of fact “must be upheld unless clearly erroneous.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
In the Marriage of: Debra Lynn Ober, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Nolan v. Nolan , 13-14 (Minn. App. 1984) ( concluding district court’s division of marital estate equitable when it did not “mathematically factor” speculative liability on personal note into division, because liability was already “inextricably tied to the spe culative, and income -generating, character, of the assets awarded
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nolan v. Nolan , review denied (Minn. Dec.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(affirming a payment pe riod of four 18 years because of the unprofitability of husband’s businesses an d his negative “cash flow position”).
In re the Marriage of: Lynn J. Dreger, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
1 (2016), requires proper consideration of a broad range of factors in determining what is a “just and equitable division.” Nolan v. Nolan
In re the Marriage of: Tracy Wong Belcher, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating a “contingency makes any fixe d sum valuation of the expectancy interest highly speculative”), review denied (Minn. May 28, 1987); d 509, 513 (Minn. App. 1984) (“It is generally held that speculative or contingent liabilities should not be considered in determi ning the net marital estate.”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Marriage of Brink v. Brink 396 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Brink v. Brink 396 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Smolecki v. Smolecki 386 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Smolecki v. Smolecki 386 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Doering v. Doering 385 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Doering v. Doering 385 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
52.01; pet for rev. denied, (Minn. Dec.
Marriage of Griepp v. Griepp 381 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Griepp v. Griepp 381 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
However, as the trial court properly noted, “the court may disregard depletions of marital assets prior to trial, in making its property division”, pet for rev. denied, (Minn. December 20, 1984): [T]he payment of these living expenses of the parties with the tax refund does not constitute dissipation of a marital asset.
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy 376 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
pet for rev. denied, (Minn.Dec.
Marriage of Brockman v. Brockman 373 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Brockman v. Brockman 373 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling 363 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling 363 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 1985