Cited by

“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.

“To overcome the presumption that property is marital, a party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is nonmarital.”

“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.”

“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.

As a general matter, “[a]ll property obtained by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be marital property.” Olsen v. Olsen

d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997).

“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.”

“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.”

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.”).

“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.”

(citing this aspect of Olsen).

“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.”

d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997).

“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.”

d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997).

Olsen v. Olsen , (Mi nn.

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).

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).

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).

notwithstanding the existence of evidence to support such findings.” (quotation omitted).

“[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.” ().

” Olsen v. Olsen , (quoting In re Trust Known as Great N. Iron Ore Props.

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.”

“ 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.”

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 , ().

“The most important factor in determining whether a gift is mari tal or nonmarital is the donor’s intent.”

(finding inclusion of two names on a deed to be strong evidence of donative intent to give the property to both people), aff’d

Olsen v. Olsen , see also Minn. Stat. § 518.003, subd.

To overcome this presumption, “a party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is nonmarital.”

To overcome this presumption, “a party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is nonmarital.” Olsen v. Olsen

“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.”

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).