Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Kottke v. Kottke, 353 N.W.2d 633.
- Erdahl v. Erdahl 384 N.W.2d 566 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Marriage of Campion v. Campion 385 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Marriage of Campion v. Campion 385 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Nelson v. Nelson 384 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Nelson v. Nelson
384 N.W.2d 468
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
at 360 ; -36 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet.
- Marriage of Ryan v. Ryan 383 N.W.2d 371 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
-
Marriage of Ryan v. Ryan
383 N.W.2d 371
Minn. Ct. App. 1986
pet for rev. denied, (Minn. Dec.
- Marriage of Guetzkow v. Guetzkow 379 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Marriage of Guetzkow v. Guetzkow 379 N.W.2d 704 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Marriage of Margeson v. Margeson 376 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Distinguished Marriage of Margeson v. Margeson 376 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Redding v. Redding 372 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Redding v. Redding 372 N.W.2d 31 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Marriage of Gully v. Gully 371 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Marriage of Gully v. Gully 371 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Marriage of Riley v. Riley 369 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Marriage of Riley v. Riley 369 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Marriage of King v. King 368 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Marriage of King v. King 368 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Marriage of Durand v. Durand 367 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Marriage of Durand v. Durand 367 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Marriage of Hein v. Hein 366 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Marriage of Hein v. Hein
366 N.W.2d 646
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“In Minnesota tracing of an asset to a non-marital source is required when the owner shows by a preponderance of evidence that the asset was ‘acquired in exchange for’ non-marital property.” pet.
- Larson v. Larson 365 N.W.2d 358 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Larson v. Larson
365 N.W.2d 358
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-636 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
- Pearson v. Pearson 363 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
Pearson v. Pearson
363 N.W.2d 337
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The party seeking the non-marital classification must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the asset was “acquired in exchange for non-marital property.” pet.