Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Otte v. Otte, 368 N.W.2d 293.

43 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(remanding for correction of mistaken calculation during property division).
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Motions for amended findings “ must be based upon the files, exhibits and minutes of the court, not upon newly discovered evidence 10 which is not a part of the record.” (applying Minn. R. Civ.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Carrie Ann Roth, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Stephenson v. Stephenson , 8-19 (Minn. 1960); Otte v. Otte
Patricia Klug, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Grant Co. , see also Otte v. Otte , (providing that a motion for amended findings “must be based upon the files, exhibits and minutes of the court, not upon newly discovered evidence which is not a part of the record”).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Alexander Mark Martinelli. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of McGowan v. McGowan 532 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of McGowan v. McGowan 532 N.W.2d 258 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Grant Co., 300 Minn. 223, 238
In re the Marriage of Freeing v. Freeing 479 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Freking v. Freking 479 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Freking v. Freking 479 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Otte v. Otte , , 297 (Minn.App.
In re the Marriage of Freeing v. Freeing 479 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
COUNTY OF MORRISON ON BEHALF OF GUTZMAN v. Watland 448 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
COUNTY OF MORRISON ON BEHALF OF GUTZMAN v. Watland 448 N.W.2d 71 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
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
(remanded to consider effect of stock’s plummeting values on the division of property); , 299 n. 1 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (“Where the value of an asset has changed substantially between the time of trial and appeal, * * * a court should consider the effect of that change on the fairness of the property division”).
Marriage of Preussner v. Timmer 414 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Preussner v. Timmer 414 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
We note that “taxable income is not always a reliable indication of net income.”
Marriage of Marx v. Marx 409 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Marx v. Marx 409 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Thomas v. Thomas 407 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Thomas v. Thomas 407 N.W.2d 124 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
[HJowever a trial court’s decision must be supported “by either clear documentary or testimonial evidence or by comprehensive findings issued by the court.” ().
Marriage of Haasken v. Haasken 396 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Haasken v. Haasken 396 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
this court stated: Generally marital estates are valued at the time of the trial.
Marriage of Barrett v. Barrett 394 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Barrett v. Barrett 394 N.W.2d 274 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Poach v. Poach 392 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Poach v. Poach 392 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Riley v. Riley 385 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Riley v. Riley 385 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“Courts have interpreted the statute to require a balancing of the supporting spouse’s financial needs and capacity against the other spouse’s financial needs and capacity.”
Justis v. Justis 384 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Justis v. Justis 384 N.W.2d 885 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Appellant argues that the trial court failed to make a
Marriage of Eklund v. Eklund 378 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Eklund v. Eklund 378 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Meier v. Connelly 378 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Meier v. Connelly 378 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Appellant’s is inapposite.
Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sefkow v. Sefkow 372 N.W.2d 37 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“Courts have interpreted the statute to require a balancing of the supporting spouse’s financial needs and capacity against the other spouse’s financial needs and capacity.”
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 370 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 370 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1985

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by