Cited by

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

175 citing documents.

In re the Matter of the Judicial Restoration of Chad Thomas Christian's Ability to Possess and Otherwise Deal … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When the district court has such broad discretion, and its decision has “an acceptable basis in fact and principle,” we will affirm “even though we might have taken a different approach.”
In re the Marriage of: Moslais X. Vue v. Khue Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Moslais X. Vue v. Khue Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn R. Rauworth, n/k/a Kathryn R. Kendall v. Barry L. Rauworth Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kathryn R. Rauworth, n/k/a Kathryn R. Kendall v. Barry L. Rauworth Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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: Lizhi Zhang v. Zheng Fu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Lizhi Zhang v. Zheng Fu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Nov.
Marriage of Passolt v. Passolt 804 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Passolt v. Passolt 804 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
This court “will affirm the [district] court’s division of property if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though [this court] might have taken a different approach.”
Marriage of Angell v. Angell 791 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2010
Marriage of Angell v. Angell 791 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2010
3 *534 I. It is well settled that “[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.”
Marriage of Kerr v. Kerr 770 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Kerr v. Kerr 770 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schisel v. Schisel 762 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
We will affirm the trial court’s division of property if it had an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though we might take a different approach.”
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 753 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 753 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
A district court has broad discretion to divide *824 marital property, and we will not reverse such a division absent a clear abuse of that discretion or an erroneous application of the law, even if we would have reached a different result
Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
Antone v. Mirviss 720 N.W.2d 331 Minn. 2006
Antone v. Mirviss 694 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Antone v. Mirviss 694 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Ultimately, the supreme court remanded the issue to the district court, stating: “We hold as a matter of law that a portion of the market-related appreciation during the marriage is marital property.”
Marriage of Sirek v. Sirek 693 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Sirek v. Sirek 693 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Appellate courts “will affirm the trial 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.”