Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hollom v. Carey, 343 N.W.2d 701.

39 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
e underlying agreement was to join in the purchase of a home and parties had reasons not to put agreement in writing); Obert, d at 747 (finding summary judgment inappropriate when there was a question of material fact involving whether the parties had a property agreement that was not based solely on living together in contemplation of sexual relations); (declining to impose a constructive trust where there was no clear understanding by the parties that the property would be jointly owned and no
Tyler Andrew Nesbit, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
But given our deference to the district court regarding credibility determinations, which are based on “observing the witnesses and judging their credibility on a first hand basis,” and our ultimate conclusion that remand is required, we also conclude that it is appropriate to allow the district court to make additional findings on remand with respect to Covel-Paulzine’s trustworthiness to comply with a partition in kind or other equitable partition method.
In re the Estate of: Harold E. Farnes, a/k/a Harold Farnes and Harold Ellwood Farnes, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We defer to the probate court’s credibility findings because that court “ha[s] the advantage of observing the witnesses and judging their credibility on a first hand basis.”
In re the Estate of Clara Mae Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Estate of Clara Mae Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We defer to the district court’s credibility findings because that court “ha[s] the advantage of observing the witnesses and judging their credibility on a first hand basis.”
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
here underlying agreement was to join in the purchase of a home and parties had reasons not to put agreement in writing); Obert, d at 747 (finding summary judgment inappropriate when there was a question of material fact involving whether the parties had a property agreement that was not based solely on living together in contemplation of sexual relations); (declining to impose a constructive trust where there was no clear understanding by the parties that the property would be jointly owned and
Obert v. Dahl 574 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re Estate of Palmen 574 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Obert v. Dahl 574 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re Estate of Palmen 574 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
ried couples in Minnesota”); (distinguishing Eriksen, where both parties made equal contributions to the acquisition and maintenance of property); (distinguishing Eriksen because, although mortgage was executed jointly, property was not purchased jointly); (distinguishing Eriksen from instant case where property was not purchased jointly, there was no clear understanding of joint ownership, and there were no extenuating circumstances justifying lack of written agreement).
Roatch v. Puera 534 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Roatch v. Puera 534 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-59 (Minn.App.1988) (without written contract, woman had no claim to real property where man provided entire payment); (absent written agreement, man could not recover labor and material costs to improvements made to parties’ home during cohabitation); (where property was not purchased jointly and there was never a clear understanding that property would be jointly owned, Minn.Stat.
Mechura v. McQuillan 419 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Mechura v. McQuillan 419 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(no written agreement); Tourville, d at 300 (no written agreement); (no written agreement).
Gardner v. Hatch 408 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Gardner v. Hatch 408 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Wilkus-Schmidt-Hight v. Wilkus 398 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wilkus-Schmidt-Hight v. Wilkus 398 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
An appelate court should not disturb the trial court’s order unless we are “left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” citing Hollow, v. Carey
Marriage of Whitmore v. Fischer 397 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Whitmore v. Fischer 397 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Moore v. Sordahl 389 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Moore v. Sordahl 389 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
§§ 513.075 and 513.-076 were therefore inapplicable to this case but relied on three post-1980 cohabitation decisions in dismissing appellant’s claim for equitable relief:
Nelson v. Nelson 384 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Nelson v. Nelson 384 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Balogh v. Balogh 376 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Balogh v. Balogh 376 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Cummings v. Cummings 376 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Cummings v. Cummings 376 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(rejecting a retroac-tivity argument and applying Minn.Stat.
Matter of Estate of Uliscni 372 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Matter of Estate of Uliscni 372 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Corwin v. Corwin 366 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Corwin v. Corwin 366 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Therefore, we will not disturb the court’s order unless we are “left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Tourville v. Kowarsch 365 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Tourville v. Kowarsch 365 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Mjolsness v. Mjolsness 363 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Mjolsness v. Mjolsness 363 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1985