Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Carrick v. Carrick, 560 N.W.2d 407.

37 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
It is clear, however, that the district court may only impute potential income to an obligor if it finds “bad faith or unjustifiable self-limitation of income.” Melius, d at 416; (applying similar requirement).
In re the Marriage of Zachary Dean Hollingsworth v. Anne Marie Halling Roe, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of Zachary Dean Hollingsworth v. Anne Marie Halling Roe, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2025
s annual income to [wife] in the amount of $100,000 or gross monthly income potential of $8,333.00.” Wife argues that the district court improperly imputed income to her “because she was not underemployed in bad faith.” To support her position, rev’d on other grounds
In re the Marriage of: Daniela Tate v. Daniel Lee Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Daniela Tate v. Daniel Lee Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Rachel Marie Benedict v. Thomas Jerry Benedict Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Rachel Marie Benedict v. Thomas Jerry Benedict Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, -14 (Minn. App. 1994); -53 (Minn. App. 2017), aff’d
In re the Marriage of: Bette Lou Gubbe Slag, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A spouse seeking to trace an asset to a nonmarital source is not held to a strict tracing standard, but need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the asset was acquired in exchange for nonmarital property.” (quotation omitted); (citing this aspect of Doering).
In re the Marriage of: Angela Marie Backman, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Citing this court’s the district court stated that there is no evidence that Angela has limited her income in bad faith.
Distinguished In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: David Michael Kedrowski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Carrick v. Carrick , , 412 (Minn. App. 1997) (providing that maintenance obligation should be calculated based on income at the time of trial).
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2019
413 (Minn. App. 1997), a wife admitted that she cashed ce rtain certificates of deposit, withdrew money from accounts, and took two trips to Las Vegas for gambling purposes .
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Citing Carrick v. Carrick , the district court stated that it could impute respondent’s earning capacity to her income only if it first found she was underemployed in bad faith, which it concluded was not the case.
In re the Marriage of: Kumiko Olivia Highley v. Christopher Alan Kvaal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Kumiko Olivia Highley v. Christopher Alan Kvaal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding district court erred in relying on obligor’s anticipated decreased income and district court should have calculated obligor’s income at time of trial).
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
A “maintenance obligation should [be] calculated based upon [the obligor’s] income at the time of trial.”
Marriage of Passolt v. Passolt 804 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Marriage of Passolt v. Passolt 804 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In its reasoning, and related appellate caselaw.
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 733 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Marriage of Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst 724 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Rauenhorst v. Rauenhorst 724 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Schallinger v. Schallinger 699 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Sirek v. Sirek 693 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Marriage of Sirek v. Sirek 693 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(concluding that provision is applicable when spouse spent monies from two certificates of deposit and the parties’ joint checking account in Las Vegas).
Youker v. Youker 661 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Youker v. Youker 661 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Robert v. Zygmunt 652 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Robert v. Zygmunt 652 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Appellant argues that the trial court improperly imputed income to him without finding that he is underemployed in bad faith; in support, rev’d on other grounds
Senske v. Senske 644 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Senske v. Senske 644 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
To claim a non-marital interest in a current asset, a party must “show by a preponderance of the evidence that the asset was acquired in exchange for nonmarital property.”
Maurer v. Maurer 607 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Maurer v. Maurer 607 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Toughill v. Toughill 609 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Toughill v. Toughill 609 N.W.2d 634 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(recognizing that continuing to care for children at home does not amount to bad-faith underemployment).