Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina, 624 N.W.2d 813.

173 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Scott Jovaag v. Melissa Jo Helene Jovaag Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: John Alex Walker v. Laura Margaret Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Conclusory findings on the statutory factors do not adequately support a fee award.”
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha v. Deepak Kademani Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Geske v. Marcolina , -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
Trung Thien Do v. Kim Lang Thi Nguyen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“While bad faith could unnecessarily increase the length or expense of a proceeding, it is not required for an award of conduct -based attorney fees.” –19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Ajay K. Israni v. Sonal A. Sidhwani Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Dia Eldin Jubara v. Nihad Salah Awad Hamed Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Lowe Billett v. RuthAnne Billett Minn. Ct. App. 2020
n.2 (Minn. App. 2001) (addressing viability of pre-amendment caselaw).
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly JoAnn Wauzynski, n/k/a/ Kimberly JoAnn Denne v. John Justin Wauzynski Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In general, “[c]onclusory findings on the statutory factors do not adequately support a fee award.” Geske v. Marcolina
In re the Marriage of: Amanda Jo Briggs v. Kent Stewart Mitchell Briggs Minn. Ct. App. 2020
bility to pay the attorneys’ fees Wife incurred, and that [Wife] does not—particularly in light of the fact that she has no real retirement saving and the Court is imputing income to her at a time she is not working a meaningful number of hours.” We deem these findings conclusory, and “[c] onclusory findings on the statutory factors do not adequately support a fee award.” review denied (Aug.
In re the Marriage of: John Gordon Lewis v. Elizabeth Ann Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g., Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , -96 (Minn. App. 2007); Geske v. Marcolina , -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Dia Eldin Jubara v. Nihad Salah Awad Hamed Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Erin Elisabeth Dancour, n/k/a Erin Elisabeth Meyers v. Elie E. Dancour Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jane Swenson Amdal v. Keith Solomon Moheban Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Geske v. Marcolina , review denied (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: Sara Lynn Garcia v. Reuben Jesse Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court may award attorney fees “against a party wh o unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding.” (quotation omitted).4 But, generally, “behav ior occurring outside the litigation process” cannot be the basis for such a fee award.
In re the Marriage of: Adetola Omolola Allen, n/k/a Adetola Omolola Abodunde v. Temitope Oluwaseyi Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1.” -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Beth Marie Delzer v. Randy Edward Delzer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In general, “[c]onclusory findings on the statutory factors do not adequately support a fee award.” d 813, 817 (Minn. App. 2011).
In re the Custody of: C.A.M., Cody A. Myers v. Jessica D. Cook, n/k/a Jessica D. Hartger, County … Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied 3 It appears that mother also requests attorney fees , but her request is not properly before us because she never made a rule 127 motion.
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Winesett v. Heather Winesett Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(reasoning that a lack of specific findings “is not fatal” to a need-based fee award where review of the order “reasonab ly implies” that the court considered the relevant factor s and the court was familiar with the parties’ circumstances (quotation omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: John Edward Warrington, and Karen Lee Warrington Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” Baertsch v. Baertsch , ().
In re the Marriage of: Jonathon Henry Ortner v. Margaret Eleanor Ortner Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1.” -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Susan Lee Wood v. Brad Wesley Wood Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1.” –19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Mary Elizabeth Moline v. Daniel Robert Moline Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 (2018), which allows for need-based fee award s. Geske v. Marcolina
In re the Marriage of: Aaron Di Luong v. Julie Ho Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Such attorney fees are generally referred to as “need-based fees,” see, -17 (Minn. App. 2001), and we review an award of need-based attorney fees for an abuse of discretion.
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Marie Tiedke, nka Kathleen Marie Freitag v. Alex Lee Tiedke Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The attorney fees described in the first sentence of this statute typically are called “need -based fees.” See Geske v. Marcolina , d 813, 816-17 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Nelson v. Jeffrey Alan Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The attorney fees described above are typically referred to as “need-based fees.” -17 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski v. Olga Kedrowski Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt v. Tami L. Mitchell, f/k/a Tami L. Dillahunt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1.” -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Lakmini Yamuna Herath v. Susantha Herath Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Lauri Sue Browning v. Daniel H. Gruenstein Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g., Madden, d at 702; Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , -96 (Minn. App. 2007) ; Geske v. Marcolina , 8-19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In Re the Marriage of: Donald M. Charlson (A18-1058) (A18-1065) v. Angela K. Charlson (A18-1058) (A18-1065) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly Kay Seidel v. Trevor Carlton Seidel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ann Bersaw v. Richard George Bersaw Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders v. Joseph James Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 (2018); -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Madden v. Madden 923 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Geske v. Marcolina , , 816-17 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris v. Robert Lee Hiniker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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
Geske v. Marcolina , , 816 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Terry Anne Boggs v. David Carl Boggs Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Geske v. Marcolina , -18 (Minn. App. 2001) (addressing need-based attorney’s fees).
In re the Custody of M. M. L. Nathan James Sands v. Sue Mae Lovick, Dakota County Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Sonja Vogen Baertsch v. Andrew Baertsch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Estate of: Prince Rogers Nelson, Decedent Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Feb.
Marriage of Mattson v. Mattson 903 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marriage of Mattson v. Mattson 903 N.W.2d 233 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Kristin Gorney v. Keith Joseph Gorney Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1 (2016); see also Geske v. Marcolina
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher v. Olga Sergeyevna Bessenbacher, County of Itasca, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl v. Steven Edward Nordahl Minn. Ct. App. 2017
18, 1999); d 813, 816 n.1 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Donald Wayne Leeke v. Susan Lynn Webb Leeke n/k/a Susan Lynn Leeke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Husband notes that “[c]onclusory findings on the statutory factors do not adequately support a fee award.” Geske v. Marcolina
In re the Marriage of: Cassie Marie Birr v. Darrin John Birr Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michael R. Shreve v. Chantal T. Shreve Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Aug.