Cited by

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

172 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: John Alex Walker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Conclusory findings on the statutory factors do not adequately support a fee award.”
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Geske v. Marcolina , -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
Trung Thien Do, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Dia Eldin Jubara, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Erin Elisabeth Dancour, n/k/a Erin Elisabeth Meyers, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jane Swenson Amdal, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Geske v. Marcolina , review denied (Minn. Aug.
In re the Marriage of: 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1.” -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
A19-1182 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” Baertsch v. Baertsch , ().
In re the Marriage of: Jonathon Henry Ortner, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1.” -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Susan Lee Wood, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1.” –19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Mary Elizabeth Moline, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Thomas M. Dillahunt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1.” -19 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Lauri Sue Browning, petitioner, Respondent, 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).
A18-1065 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly Kay Seidel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Beth Ann Bersaw, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Anne Sanders, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Sonja Vogen Baertsch, petitioner, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1 (2016); see also Geske v. Marcolina
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
18, 1999); d 813, 816 n.1 (Minn. App. 2001).
In re the Marriage of: Donald Wayne Leeke, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michael R. Shreve, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Aug.
In re the Matter of: J. S. S., petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by