Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Erickson v. Erickson, 452 N.W.2d 253.

34 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Attorney-fee awards “normally will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The trial court may not modify a division of property after the original judgment has been entered and the time for appeal has expired.”
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Attorney-fee awards “normally will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
In re the Marriage of: Oluwafunbi Ige Olusina, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The district court has “considerable discretion” in awarding attorney fees, and we will not disturb the district court’s award of attorney fees absent a clear abuse of discretion
In re the Marriage of: Deborah Kay Schadewald, n/k/a Deborah Kay DeJong, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- 56 (Minn. App. 1990) (noting that 6 a district court cannot implement or enforce a dissolution judgment in a manner that alters the terms of that judgment or otherwise alters the parties’ substantive rights) .
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Michelle Beth Kremer v. Robbie Michael Kremer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Khan Turouk, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that “[t]he sole relief from the judgment and decree lies in meeting the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd.
Alison Margaret Perry, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-56 (Minn. App. 1990) (noting that dissolution courts cannot implement or enforce a dissolution judgment in a manner that alters the terms of that judgment or otherwise alters the parties’ substantive rights).
In re the Marriage of: Christopher Warren Rupp, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court may issue orders to implement or enforce provisions of a judgment, , and appellate courts will not alter a district court’s implementation of a judgment provision unless the district court abuses its discretion
In re the Marriage of: Laurie S. Morris Hiniker a/k/a Laurie Suzette Morris, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Generally, a district court “may not modify a division of property after the original judgment has been entered and the time for appeal has expired.” .
In re the Marriage of: Matthew Durand Dornquast, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
utes “an impermissible modification of a final property settlement” because it is inconsistent with the indemnification provision in the judgment and decree, which establishes wife’s “liability in connection with the condominium.” A district court “may not modify a division of property after the original judgment has been entered and the time for appeal has expired.” d 253, 255 (Minn. App. 1990).
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Lyn Renneke, n/k/a Tamara Lyn Fjoslien v. Dean Glenn Renneke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Lyn Renneke, n/k/a Tamara Lyn Fjoslien v. Dean Glenn Renneke Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Leon Asle Baxter v. Debra Kay Baxter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Leon Asle Baxter v. Debra Kay Baxter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-56 (Minn. App. 1990); (observing that the district court has the power to clarify and construe the judgment and decree so long as the parties’ substantive rights are unchanged)
In re the Marriage of: Vitamin v. Misha Gordin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Vitamin v. Misha Gordin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The district court “may not modify a division of property after the original judgment has been entered and the time for appeal has expired,” although it “may issue appropriate orders implementing or enforcing specific provisions of the dissolution decree.” (prohibiting district court 4 from modifying property division); -37 (Minn. App. 1985) (same).
Harold B. Kaeding v. Monica S. Soleta, f/k/a Monica S. Kaeding, f/k/a Monica S. B. Jurupe, Zoraida Franco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Harold B. Kaeding v. Monica S. Soleta, f/k/a Monica S. Kaeding, f/k/a Monica S. B. Jurupe, Zoraida Franco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4 court “may issue appropriate orders implementing or enforcing specific provisions of the dissolution decree,” it “may not modify a division of property after the original judgment has been entered and the time for appeal has expired.” d 253, 255 (Minn. App. 1990); (concluding property divisions are final and not subject to modification except when they are result of mistake or fraud).
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen v. Peter John Bernhagen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Katherina Theresa Bernhagen v. Peter John Bernhagen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A district court “may not modify a division of property after the original judgment has been entered and the time for appeal has expired.”
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Bakken v. Helgeson 785 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Redburn v. Ferlitto 565 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Redburn v. Ferlitto 565 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
4 supports the district court’s judgment against appellant.
Marriage of Sweere v. Gilbert-Sweere 534 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Marriage of Sweere v. Gilbert-Sweere 534 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
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
The judgment here having made no lump sum award, the trial court’s jurisdiction was needed later, when pension payments began, to “issue appropriate orders implementing or enforcing specific provisions of the dissolution decree.” (citation omitted); (), pet.
Marriage of Potter v. Potter 471 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Potter v. Potter 471 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 1991