Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Maurer v. Maurer, 623 N.W.2d 604.

131 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Christina L. Suhsen v. Karl W. Suhsen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Under Minnesota law, “it is within the [dis trict] court’s discretion to consider the tax consequences of its [marital property] award.” Maurer v. Maurer , ().
In re the Marriage of: Cynthia A. Linnerooth v. Gerald R. Linnerooth Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Larry Allan Keeler v. Michelle Marie Keeler Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Marriage of: Debra Lynn Ober v. Randall Lane Ober Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Beatrice De Ann Steele v. Steven Paul Steele Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Nelson v. Jeffrey Alan Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 604, 606 (Minn. 2001).
In the Marriage of: Deborah J. Schmitt v. Paul N. Schmitt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Marie Wilson v. Todd Joseph Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Landmark Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Klingelhutz 927 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Berry & Co., Inc. v. County of Hennepin , , 33 (Minn. 2011) (stating standard in context of supreme court review of the tax court's property valuation); *755 Maurer v. Maurer , , 606 (Minn. 2001) (stating that appellate courts will not set aside a district court's determination of an asset's value in a family-law case unless the finding was "clearly erroneous on the record as a whole" (quotation omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders v. Joseph James Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court acts within its discretion in applying a tax rate if it has “a ‘reasonable and supportable basis for making 11 an informed judgment as to [the] probable liability.’” () (alteration in original), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Muschik v. Conner-Muschik 920 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Muschik v. Conner-Muschik 920 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Maurer v. Maurer , , 606 (Minn. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Ann Fonoti v. Mace Faamasani Fonoti Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Maurer v. Maurer , (“A [district] court has broad discretion in dividing property upon dissolution of a marriage.”).
In re the Marriage of: Terry Anne Boggs v. David Carl Boggs Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Mandeep Singh Sodhi v. Leisa Lynn-Ketelsen Sodhi Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Alexander K. Antzaras v. Triantafilia Rose Moshou-Antzaras Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Glenn Alan LaTour v. Nancy Jean LaTour Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Tracy Wong Belcher v. Benjamin Moore Belcher, III Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Cassie Marie Birr v. Darrin John Birr Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Such findings of fact, when made without a jury, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous 5 on the record as a whole.” (quotations and citations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Jean Rucker v. Kraig Vernon Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Sonya Sebring Stylos v. Lee Stylos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that the review of tax consequences is within a district court’s discretion and opposing such consideration if the district court is presented with insufficient evidence to make an adequately informed decision on the point); (“Although it
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis 887 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2016
In this case, the court of appeals suggested that the district court did not have to account for the tax consequences of the reallocation
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: David Lee Christensen v. Kathryn Florence Kladek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When deciding whether a finding of fact is clearly erroneous, [an appellate] court takes the view of the evidence which is most favorable to the [district] court’s findings.” Id.; (acknowledging that, in dissolution matters, valuation findings are necessarily based on approximations, and “broad deference is appropriate” so that such findings should not be reversed “unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole”).
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact and will “not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Janelle M. Schires v. Vernon D. Schires Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Janelle M. Schires v. Vernon D. Schires Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact and will “not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Tarah Ann Aanerud v. James Richard Aanerud Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact and will “not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Christina Marie Rexine v. Joey Lee Rexine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christina Marie Rexine v. Joey Lee Rexine Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Pettey v. Melissa Denise Pettey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Pettey v. Melissa Denise Pettey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of Mary Ellen Block, f/k/a Mary Ellen Jensen v. William Ray Block Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of Mary Ellen Block, f/k/a Mary Ellen Jensen v. William Ray Block Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that a “bright-line 10 rule would leave little, if any, room for the exercise of discretion”).
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that whether to consider the tax consequences of a property distribution lies within the district court’s discretion).
Colleen M. Doyle v. Keith R. Klein Minn. Ct. App. 2015