Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Olsen v. Olsen, 562 N.W.2d 797.

107 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Laura Marie Knutsen v. Peder Nels Knutsen Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In re the Marriage of: Lori Ann Chang v. Peter Alan Chang Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Vydehi Aravalli v. Rajagopal Naga Aravalli Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“All property obtained by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be marital property, regardless of the form of ownership.” Olsen v .Olsen, see Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd.
In the Marriage of: Amber Rose Atak v. Ker Yel Yel Atak Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“To overcome the presumption that property is marital, a party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is nonmarital.”
In the Marriage of: Allison Baron Bonnett v. Theodore James Bonnett Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“For nonmarital property to maintain its nonmarital status, it must either be kept separate from marital property or, if commingled with marital property, be readily traceable.”
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Onori Hansen v. Jay Ralph Hansen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“All property obtained by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be marital property, regardless of the form of ownership.” see Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Craig Jerald Mackey v. Beth Ann Mackey Minn. Ct. App. 2024
As a general matter, “[a]ll property obtained by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be marital property.” Olsen v. Olsen
In re the Marriage of: Linda Beth Krelitz v. Michael James Krelitz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997).
In re the Marriage of: Jacob Juta v. Fte-Hudani Achinge Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“For nonmarital property to maintain its nonmarital status, it must either be kept separate from marital property or, if commingled with marital property, be readily traceable.”
In re the Marriage of: Tracie Kay Fowler v. Erwin James Fowler, III Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the [district] court’s underlying findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Shima Shojaee Falavarjani v. Navid Tabrizi Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Shima Shojaee Falavarjani v. Navid Tabrizi Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Bette Lou Gubbe Slag v. David Alan Slag Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Ritesh Singh v. Rina Singh Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Kiran Kumar Arise v. Anjali Naresh Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Kiran Kumar Arise v. Anjali Naresh Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Jerry Arthur McDonald v. Donna Arnela McDonald, n/k/a Donna Arnela Rosenblad Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Jodi Ann Mussehl v. Fred Richard Mussehl Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1 (2022); see also Olsen v. Olsen , (“All property obtained by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be marital property, regardless of the form of ownership.”).
In re the Marriage of: Diane Faye Meyer v. Chad Allen Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the [district] court’s underlying findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Whitney Ariane Blessing (A21-1709) (A21-1725) v. Andrew David Blessing (A21-1709) (A21-1725) Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citing this aspect of Olsen).
In re the Marriage of: Sneha Singh v. Ashok Kumar Goyal Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the [district] court’s underlying findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Kelly John Brown v. Shawn Marie Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Elizabeth Solinsky, n/k/a Jessica Elizabeth Grimm v. Joseph Clark Solinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997).
In re the Marriage of: Bobbi Jean Suhonen, n/k/a Bobbi Jean Lindsay v. Robert Thomas Suhonen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Janie Warren Berg v. David A. Berg Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: David Gordon Wingad v. Janet Marie Wingad Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: John A. Laumann v. Kelly M. Laumann Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the [district] court’ s underlying findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha v. Deepak Kademani Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997).
In re the Marriage of: Amy Jo Yurek, n/k/a Amy Jo Sellers v. Michael Francis Yurek Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Knewtson, n/k/a Nicole Marie Campbell v. Adam Christopher Knewtson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Olsen v. Olsen , (Mi nn.
In re the Marriage of: Vicki Collette Sandberg v. Mark Alan Sandberg Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Olsen v. Olsen , ( stating that whether property is marital or nonmarital presents a legal question, but we must defer to the district court’s underlying findings of fact).
In re the Marriage of: Kevin James Stanton v. Megan Caroline Curran Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Richard Minder III v. Jai Maria Negri Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A finding is clearly errone ous if the reviewing cou rt is “ left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Perrill v. Gregory High Perrill Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, we may find the [district] court’s decision to be clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the existence of evidence to support such findings.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly JoAnn Wauzynski, n/k/a/ Kimberly JoAnn Denne v. John Justin Wauzynski Minn. Ct. App. 2020
notwithstanding the existence of evidence to support such findings.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Dia Eldin Jubara v. Nihad Salah Awad Hamed Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[I]f we are ‘left with the definite and firm convictio n that a mistake has been made,’ we may find the trial court’s decision to be clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the existence of evidence to support such 10 findings.” ().
In re the Marriage of: Lisa Marie Kent v. Brenton Jackson Kent Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Francis Stephen Gill v. Gretchen Zwakman Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” Olsen v. Olsen , (quoting In re Trust Known as Great N. Iron Ore Props.
In re the Marriage of: Donald Henry Off v. Sandra Lee Off, n/k/a/ Sandra Lee Dodgson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law that we review de novo, “but a reviewing court must defer to the trial court’s underlying finding of facts.”
In re the Marriage of: Beth Marie Delzer v. Randy Edward Delzer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“ Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the trial court’s underlying findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Donald William McIsaac v. Nadine S. Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Generally, we “exercise independent review” over a district court’s classification of property as marital or nonmarital, although “deference is given to the district court’s findings of fact.” Gottsacker v. Gottsacker , ().
In re the Marriage of: Peder Kristian Rogich v. Denise Lynn Rogich Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The most important factor in determining whether a gift is mari tal or nonmarital is the donor’s intent.”
In re the Marriage of: Judy Ann Jacques v. Nicholas Melvin Jacques Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Denise M. Tessman v. Blaine P. Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(finding inclusion of two names on a deed to be strong evidence of donative intent to give the property to both people), aff’d
In re the Marriage of: Beatrice De Ann Steele v. Steven Paul Steele Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Olsen v. Olsen , see also Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd.
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Marie Tiedke, nka Kathleen Marie Freitag v. Alex Lee Tiedke Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To overcome this presumption, “a party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is nonmarital.”
In the Marriage of: Deborah J. Schmitt v. Paul N. Schmitt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To overcome this presumption, “a party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is nonmarital.” Olsen v. Olsen
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Marie Wilson v. Todd Joseph Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of la w, but a reviewing court must defer to the [distric t] court’s underlying findings of fact.”
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ann Bersaw v. Richard George Bersaw Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Jesse A. Freking v. Audra Jo Buxengard f/k/a Audra Jo Freking Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If an appellate court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made,” it “may find the [district] court ’s decision to be clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the existence of evidence to support such findings.” Olsen v. Olsen , (quotation omitted).