Cited by

section 518.58, subdivision 1 (2024), requires a district court to “value marital assets for purposes of division between the parties as of the day of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, unless a different date is agreed upon by the parties” or “the [district] court makes specific findings that another date of valuation is fair and equitable.” (remanding for additional findings when district court’s errors included failure to state valuation date and record held no evidence

’” Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld , (); see also Durkin v. Hinich , (the presumption that a natural parent is entitled to custody may be overturned if there are grave and weighty reasons to separate a child from a natural parent (quotation omitted)).

We have held that, “[w]here the evidence indicates that the parties lack the ability to cooperate and communicate, joint legal custody is not appropriate.” (affirming denial of joint legal custody when “the turmoil in [the parties’] relationship ha[d] been so intense .

(holding that husband failed to prove that funds he brought into the marriage were nonmarital when the record was “devoid” of any explanation of where the premarital funds went but suggested that they were commingled with marital funds).

1(b)(9) (2022); (“Joint legal custody is presumed to be in a child’s best interests.”).

27, 2001); (reversing district court’s custody decision and concluding that remand was necessary in part due to lack of record evidence of “events that ha[d] affected .

See, e.g., Wopata v. Wopata , WL 3013246, at *2 (Minn. App. July 17, 2017) ( citing Wopata for the proposition that legal custody should only be granted w here the parents can “cooperatively deal with parenting decisions”); Rucker v. Rucker , No. A16- 0942, 2016 WL 7439094, at *5

1(b)(9) (2020), we have previously recognized that joint legal custody is not a preferred arrangement when the parties are unable to cooperate an d communicate about parenting decisions

See Wopata v. Wopata , (M inn.

For nonmarital property to maintain its nonmarital status, it must either be “kept separate from marital property or, if commingled with marital property, be readily traceable.” .

See id.; -86 (Minn. App. 1993)

Berger, 308 Minn. at 428, d at 83 7; Wopata v. Wopata , d 478, 485-86 (Minn. App. 1993); Van de Loo v. Van de Loo , -66 (Minn. App. 1984).

1(b)(9) ( 2016).2 This court has held that joint legal custody is inappropriate “[w]here the evidence indicates that the parties lack the ability to cooperate and communicate.” ; (stating that “joint legal custody should not be used as a ‘legal baseball bat’ to coerce cooperation”).

See Wopata v. Wopata , 48 6 (Minn. App. 1993) 1 In her reply brief, mother argues against relying on Minn. Stat. § 518.17, subd.

We have held that joint legal custody is inappropriate where “the evidence indicates that the parties lack the ability to cooperate and communicate.”

see also Geibe, d at 780 (“Minnesota law rests on a presumption that stability of custody 7 is in a child’s best interests.”).

t finds that it would be detrimental to the children if one parent were to have sole authority over the upbringing of the children.” But in Wopata v. Wopata, we reversed a joint custody decision after reviewing the statutory custody factors because “the fact that appellant and respondent are equally qualified to raise the children does not mean that they are qualified to raise them jointly.”

(stating that joint legal custody is inappropriate when the record demonstrates that the parties are unable to communicate and cooperate).

When the record demonstrates that the parties “lack the ability to cooperate and communicate, joint legal custody is not appropriate.” d 478, 482 (Minn. App. 1993).

(concluding that district court’s finding that “parents are totally unable to agree” and “communication between them is impossible” did not support a joint-custody award).

See, (noting that “joint physical custody is not preferred” -83 (Minn.App.1993) ); (“Joint physical custody is not a preferred custody arrangement due to the instability, turmoil, and lack of continuity inherent in such an arrangement and is not generall

(stating that joint-legal custody is inappropriate when the parties are unable to communicate and cooperate).

-86 (Minn.App.1993) (upholding reservation of maintenance where husband was, at dissolution, financially self-sufficient but heart problems made future self-sufficiency uncertain); (requiring district court to amend decree to include reservation of jurisdicti

But “joint legal custody should be granted only where the parents can cooperatively deal with parenting decisions.” ().

See, -84 (Minn.App.1993) (remanding for consideration of present circumstances when the record had closed over two years before appellate consideration of case).