Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Antone v. Antone, 645 N.W.2d 96.

176 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Brenda Anne Kiberu-Kalema, n/k/a/ Brenda Anne Kiberu v. Kizito David Kalema Minn. Ct. App. 2021
8 and will not be overturned except for abuse of discretion.” d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002).
In re the Marriage of: David Gordon Wingad v. Janet Marie Wingad 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
(concluding that marital equity was created in property from use of marital funds to pay down the mortgage during the marriage).
In re the Marriage of: Melissa Leigh Brinkman, and Robert Michael Brinkman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The Schmitz formula “recognizes that the increase in the value of the property acquired before the marriage — that is, the net equity at the time of the marriage —is nonmarital property.”
In re the Marriage of: Kevin James Stanton v. Megan Caroline Curran Minn. Ct. App. 2021
3b (2018) ; –01 (Minn. 2002).
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Lowe Billett v. RuthAnne Billett Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Kimberly JoAnn Wauzynski, n/k/a/ Kimberly JoAnn Denne v. John Justin Wauzynski Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Dia Eldin Jubara v. Nihad Salah Awad Hamed Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A [district] court has broad discretion in evaluating and dividing property in a marital dissolution and will not be overturned except for abuse of discretion.”
In re the Marriage of: Jill Nicole Prokop v. Christopher Jon Prokop Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Francis Stephen Gill v. Gretchen Zwakman Gill Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A [district] court has broad discretion in evaluating and dividing property in a marital dissolution and will not be overturned except for abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: James Warren Huerd v. Wanda Sue Huerd Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Charles Robert Aufenthie v. Heidi Christine Aufenthie Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-23 (Minn. 1986); d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002) (“A trial court has broad discretion in evaluating and divid ing property in a marital dissolution and will not be overturned except for abuse of discretion.”).
In re the Marriage of: Beth Marie Delzer v. Randy Edward Delzer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Jonathon Henry Ortner v. Margaret Eleanor Ortner Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Christina L. Suhsen v. Karl W. Suhsen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Peder Kristian Rogich v. Denise Lynn Rogich Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Marriage of: Debra Lynn Ober v. Randall Lane Ober Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Even if we might have taken a different approach, we will affirm the division if it had an “acceptable basis in fact and principle.” .
In re the Marriage of: Judy Ann Jacques v. Nicholas Melvin Jacques Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Heidi Renae Karn-Kirwin, n/k/a Heidi Renae Karn v. Shawn Patrick Kirwin, co-petitioner 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: Faye Karen Bernstein (A18-1402) (A18-1408) v. Scott Tomi Gilbert (A18-1402) (A18-1408) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“To overcome the presumption that property is marital, a party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is nonmarital.” Antone v. Antone
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Marie Tiedke, nka Kathleen Marie Freitag v. Alex Lee Tiedke Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A trial court has broad discretion in evaluating and dividing property in a marital dissolution and will not be overturned except for abuse of discretion.”
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
dividing pro perty in a marital dissolution and will not be overtur ned except for abuse of disc retion.”
In re the Marriage of: Amy Alyssa Post v. Samuel Morton Post, III Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An appellate court “will affirm the [district] court’s division of property if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though [the appellate court] might have taken a different approach.” Antone v. Antone
In re the Marriage of: Mark Allen Kedrowski v. Masako Kedrowski Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris v. Robert Lee Hiniker 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
A district court abuses its discretion when d ividing property if its division lacks a “basis in fact and principle.” Antone v. Antone
In re the Marriage of: Bijoy Raghavan v. Smeeta Antony Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court will affirm a district court’s division of property if that division has “an acceptable basis in fact and principle.”
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Antone v. Antone , , 100 (Minn. 2002).
In re the Marriage of: Amy Marie Causton v. Paul Ronald Causton Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Antone v. Antone , Chamberlain v. Chamberlain , review denied (Minn. Oct.
Leon Tijuan Jackson v. State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. 2018
After we ruled that the appreciation of premarital pro perty is itself marital property, –03 (Minn. 2002), Antone filed suit against Mirviss, alleging that Mirviss was negligent when drafting the antenuptial agreement.
In re the Marriage of: Patricia Rose Whipps v. Richard Cordell Whipps Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We will affirm a district court’s proper ty division “if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though we might have taken a different approach.”
In re the Marriage of: Brent Lee Florine v. Lauren Marie Florine Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Alexander K. Antzaras v. Triantafilia Rose Moshou-Antzaras Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A [district] court has broad discretion in evaluating and dividing property in a marital dissolution and will not be overturned except for abuse of discretion.”
In re the Marriage of: Glenn Alan LaTour v. Nancy Jean LaTour Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Schmitz formula is used “to determ ine marital and nonmarital interests in property acquired before the marriage.” (citations omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Michael Keith Rhyan v. Marni Linette Rhyan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Andrew Scott Green v. Julie Ann Green Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Appellate courts ‘will affirm the [district] court’s division of property if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though [the appellate court] might have taken a different approach.’” Sirek, d at 898 ().
In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Kristin Gorney v. Keith Joseph Gorney Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(explaining that the district court has discretion in evaluating and dividing property in a martial dissolution); (concluding that it is 6 “unable to say from the record that the [district] court abused its discretion in setting dates
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher v. Olga Sergeyevna Bessenbacher, County of Itasca, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gill v. Gill 900 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Gill v. Gill 900 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michael R. Shreve v. Chantal T. Shreve Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Jose Flores Moran v. Yolanda Jimenez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer 889 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court will affirm a district court’s division of property if that division has “an acceptable basis in fact and principle.”
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