Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Marriage of O'Brien v. O'Brien, 343 N.W.2d 850.

65 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, the supreme court has “repeatedly stated that the [district] court should not speculate about possible tax consequences.” (citing O’Brien v. O’Brien , Aaron v. Aaron , ).
In the Marriage of: Deborah J. Schmitt, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court may not consider the tax c onsequences of a transaction if it “must speculate because the evidence is lacking or nonspecific.” O’Brien v. O’Brien
In re the Marriage of: Tracy Wong Belcher, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To support his argument that the trust income may not be considered, and O’Brien v. O’Brien
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Mary Patricia Myhre v. Steven Kenneth Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Grigsby v. Grigsby 648 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Maurer v. Maurer 623 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 2001
Maurer v. Maurer 623 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 2001
See Aaron, d at 153 ; O’Brien v. O’Brien
Maurer v. Maurer 607 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Maurer v. Maurer 607 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Maeder v. Maeder 480 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Maeder v. Maeder 480 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Berenberg v. Berenberg 474 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Berenberg v. Berenberg 474 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Head v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 449 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Head v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 449 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See O’Brien v. O’Brien, (in an exceptional case, reasons justifying permanent support justify security); O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, (wife’s situation warrants security).
Marriage of Duffey v. Duffey 432 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Duffey v. Duffey 432 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
In O’Brien v. O’Brien, the supreme court recognized that “[i]n the exceptional case, the reasons which justify granting permanent alimony * * * also justify the securing of that alimony.” Id.
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
O’Brien v. O’Brien, (finding exceptional circumstances; wife with poor employment prospects which were unlikely to improve, and who was to care for daughter who had cerebral palsy); pet for rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
Marriage of Rundell v. Rundell 423 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Rundell v. Rundell 423 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See O’Brien v. O’Brien, Minn.Stat.
Marriage of Karon v. Karon 417 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Karon v. Karon 417 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Kruschel v. Kruschel 419 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Kruschel v. Kruschel 419 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
30, 1987) (although military disability benefits may not be divided as a marital asset, they can be considered as income in setting maintenance awards); O’Brien v. O’Brien, (if the valuation of property awarded is based on the capitalization of an income stream, that income is properly excluded in determining maintenance).
Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 385 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini 385 N.W.2d 339 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Catania v. Catania 385 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Catania v. Catania 385 N.W.2d 28 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“[T]he law precludes any consideration [of tax consequences] where the court *31 must speculate because the evidence is lacking or nonspecific.” O’Brien v. O’Brien
Marriage of Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 379 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 379 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Nemitz v. Nemitz 376 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Fick v. Fick 375 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Fick v. Fick 375 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Nemitz v. Nemitz 376 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“[T]he law preludes any consideration [of tax consequences] where the court must speculate because the evidence is lacking or nonspecific.” O’Brien v. O’Brien
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 374 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Peterson v. Peterson 374 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
O’Brien v. O’Brien, pet.
Marriage of Brockman v. Brockman 373 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Brockman v. Brockman 373 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kramer v. Kramer 372 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kramer v. Kramer 372 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Frederiksen v. Frederiksen 368 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Frederiksen v. Frederiksen 368 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In O’Brien v. O’Brien, the trial court awarded permanent maintenance to a 49 year-old woman who had a high school education but no employment skills.
Marriage of Kostelnik v. Kostelnik 367 N.W.2d 665 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Kostelnik v. Kostelnik 367 N.W.2d 665 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In O’Brien v. O’Brien, the husband’s pre-tax income was $60,000.
Marriage of Pekarek v. Pekarek 362 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Pekarek v. Pekarek 362 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Juelfs v. Juelfs 359 N.W.2d 667 Minn. Ct. App. 1984