Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Lyon v. Lyon, 439 N.W.2d 18.

74 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Because maintenance is awarded to meet need, maintenance depends on a showing of need.” d 631, 642 (Minn. 2009) (stating that the district court awarded wife more maintenance than she reasonably needed to support herself and instructing the district court on remand to make findings that support the current award or to make a different award).
In re the Marriage of: Alyssa Aileen Rex, f/k/a Alyssa Aileen Nicoski v. Steven Edward Nicoski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Alyssa Aileen Rex, f/k/a Alyssa Aileen Nicoski v. Steven Edward Nicoski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “maintenance depends on a showing of need”); (stating that “[a]bsent a demonstrated need [by a maintenance recipient, a maintenance obligor’s] continuing maintenance obligation should be terminated”).
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Charles DeBolt Hart v. Jennifer Jayne Hart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(remanding for the district court to make findings justifying a maintenance award in excess of a recipient’s reasonable needs).
In re the Marriage of: Kerry S. Spolum v. Michael J. D'Amato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kerry S. Spolum v. Michael J. D'Amato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Because maintenance is awarded to meet need, maintenance depends on a showing of need.” (stating that the district court awarded wife more maintenance than she reasonably needed to support herself and instructing the district court on remand to make findings that support the current award or a different award).
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Christine J. Curtis v. Gregory M. Curtis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.2 (Minn. 1989) for the proposition that a district court’s finding is clearly erroneous if it could be “construed as determining that the wife would have to invade her estate.” But appellant’s reliance is misplaced: Lyon reversed a maintenance award on the ground that the husband “should not have to pay perm
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
obviate the statutory mandate that the other spouse’s own independent financial resources must be considered.” n.2 (Minn. App. 2008) (“[E]qualization of the parties’ incomes by an adjustment of maintenance is without authority or precedent.”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
Kemp v. Kemp 608 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Kemp v. Kemp 608 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
2(a) (district court must consider “financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to the party, and the party’s ability to meet needs independently”); (“A spouse’s ability to pay maintenance does not * ⅜ * obviate the statutory mandate that the other spouse’s own independent financial resources must be considered too.”); cf. State ex rel.
Walker v. Walker 553 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Walker v. Walker 553 N.W.2d 90 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(reversing maintenance award to obligee who had annual expenses of $78,000 and an annual income of over $200,000).
Marriage of Bliss v. Bliss 493 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Bliss v. Bliss 493 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(maintenance is function of need).
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
(treating part of spouses’ interest in corporation closely-held by unrelated persons as marital interest).
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The supreme court recently stated, “[a] spouse’s ability to pay maintenance does not * * * obviate the statutory mandate that the other spouse’s own independent financial resources must be considered too.”
Berens v. Berens 443 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Berens v. Berens 443 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Joanne’s (maintenance award reversed where spouse seeking maintenance took $3.6 million property settlement and income from property was found sufficient to meet her expenses), is misplaced.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by