Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Rohling v. Rohling, 379 N.W.2d 519.

51 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-23 (Minn. 1986) (holding that the district court’s award of the homestead to one party subject to an equitable lien in favor of the other party was proper because it had “an acceptable basis in fact and principle” (quotation omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
1 (2024), and we review its division of marital property for an abuse of discretion
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-23 (Minn. 1986) (holding that the district court’s award of the homestead to one party subject to an equitable lien in favor of the other party was proper because it had “an acceptable basis in fact and principle” (quotation omitted)).
In re the Marriage of: Charles Robert Aufenthie, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-23 (Minn. 1986); d 96, 100 (Minn. 2002) (“A trial court has broad discretion in evaluating and divid ing property in a marital dissolution and will not be overturned except for abuse of discretion.”).
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
Gill v. Gill 919 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2018
See Rohling v. Rohling , , 522 (Minn. 1986) (determining that retirement funds were marital because the spouse "acquired the right to receive the funds" during *306 the marriage); Janssen , d at 754 ("[T]he interest appellant holds becomes more than a mere expectancy-it becomes a chose in action , a contractual right: a property inte
In re the Marriage of: Mandeep Singh Sodhi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rohling, -23 (Minn. 1986).
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
A district court’s use of a marital lien to divide property must have “an acceptable basis in fact and principle.” -23 (Minn.1986) (approving marital lien that did not mature for 15 years).
Holmberg v. Holmberg 529 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Holmberg v. Holmberg 529 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Plonske v. Plonske 473 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Plonske v. Plonske 473 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
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
We must affirm the district court’s property distribution if the distribution “has an acceptable basis in fact and principle.” See Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. at 426, (a homestead lien payable in fifteen years was affirmed because it had an “acceptable basis in fact and principle”).
Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso 417 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Mancuso v. Mancuso 417 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“A trial court’s distribution of marital property may be entitled to great deference, but its discretion is limited once property has been defined as nonmarital.” () (emphasis in original).
Marriage of Scholle v. Scholle 411 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Scholle v. Scholle 411 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Salstrom v. Salstrom 404 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Salstrom v. Salstrom 404 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hug, 154 Cal.App.3d at 784 n. 1, 201 Cal.Rptr.
Marriage of Tollefson v. Tollefson 403 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Tollefson v. Tollefson 403 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Holder v. Holder 403 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Holder v. Holder 403 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter 395 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Wolter v. Wolter 395 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court held that the trial court had discretion, in determining a party’s share of the marital assets, to include money received by the party during the marriage under his retirement plan and spent entirely by him without his ex-wife’s knowledge.
Maher v. Maher 393 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rice v. Rice 393 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Rice v. Rice 393 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Maher v. Maher 393 N.W.2d 190 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
(retirement funds received by husband after commencement of dissolution proceeding and during separation was marital property for distribution purposes).
Marriage of Graeber v. Graeber 392 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Graeber v. Graeber 392 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 390 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 390 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Smolecki v. Smolecki 386 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Smolecki v. Smolecki 386 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The lower court will be affirmed “if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle even though we might have made a different disposition of the problem.” (quoting Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426-27 , ).
Marriage of Hogsven v. Hogsven 386 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Hogsven v. Hogsven 386 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Valento v. Valento 385 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Doering v. Doering 385 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Kenville v. Kenville 385 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Valento v. Valento 385 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Doering v. Doering 385 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A reviewing court must affirm a property distribution that has an “acceptable basis in fact and principle even though we might have made a different disposition of the problem.” (quoting Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 426-27 , ).
Marriage of Kenville v. Kenville 385 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage Of: Thomas v. Thomas 383 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage Of: Thomas v. Thomas 383 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1986