Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Taylor v. Taylor, 329 N.W.2d 795.

131 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The valuation and division of pension rights is generally a matter for the trial court’s discretion.”
In re the marriage of: Lori Ann Saari v. Mark Steven Saari Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the marriage of: Lori Ann Saari v. Mark Steven Saari Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The first method uses the “present value” of the pension 1—at the time of divorce—and is often preferred “where there are sufficient assets available at the time of the divorce to divide the present value of the retirement benefits without causing an undue hardship to either spouse.”
In re the Marriage of: Antoine Versabeau, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Minn. 2022
v. API, Inc. Asbestos Settlement Tr., (“[P]ension benefits are properly to be considered by the trial court in exercising its discretion in a property division .
In re the Marriage of: Robert Thomas Brown, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“In dissolution cases the district court is given broad discretion regarding the division of property.
In re the Marriage of: Fadumo Salad, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This method requires a “determination of a fixed percentage for the non -employee spouse of any future payments the employee receives under the plan.” Taylor v. Taylor
Leon Asle Baxter v. Debra Kay Baxter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Leon Asle Baxter v. Debra Kay Baxter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This method requires a “determination of a fixed percentage for the non-employee spouse of any future payments the employee receives under the plan.”
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Helen Kernik v. James Kernik, Judith Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 721 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Danielson v. Danielson 721 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
-99 (Minn.1983) (discussing methods of dividing pension interests, including the “fixed percentage” method of dividing pension interests, which awards each party a specific proportion of what ultimately turns out to be the marital portion of the pension being divided).
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
Marriage of Gessner v. Gessner 487 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Gessner v. Gessner 487 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Marriage of Broas v. Broas 472 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Broas v. Broas 472 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of Rask v. Rask 445 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(valuation and division of pension rights is a matter for the trial court’s discretion).
Marriage of McCulloch v. McCulloch 435 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of McCulloch v. McCulloch 435 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In dissolution actions, “the district court is given broad discretion regarding * * * spousal maintenance.” and “[r]elated findings of fact must be upheld unless clearly erroneous.” pet.
Marriage of Neubauer v. Neubauer 433 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Neubauer v. Neubauer 433 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Further, the court noted: [I]n [-13 (Minn.1982) ] this court upheld a trial court order which awarded the wife a 50% share of her husband's pension benefits [as] spousal maintenance.
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Fastner v. Fastner 427 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Kruschel v. Kruschel 419 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Kruschel v. Kruschel 419 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Marriage of Foster v. Childers 416 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Foster v. Childers 416 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(vested pension benefits or rights are a marital asset).
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Mikoda v. Mikoda 413 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(supreme court held vested pension benefits were marital property, and then used “pension benefits” and “retirement benefits” interchangeably).
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 412 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 412 N.W.2d 773 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Petschel v. Petschel 406 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Petschel v. Petschel 406 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the supreme court held that the fixed percentage method advocated by appellant should be used when “there are not enough assets to equitably require that benefits due in the future be split presently.” That holding was followed in Kottke , in which this court held: The Taylor decision also calls for
Marriage of Hafner v. Hafner 406 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Hafner v. Hafner 406 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
“This method is preferred where there are sufficient assets available at the time of divorce to divide the present value of the retirement benefits without causing an undue hardship to either spouse and where testimony on valuation is not unduly speculative.”
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
In so doing, the court stated: We recently outlined a
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 402 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg 402 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marriage of Crace v. Crace 396 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Crace v. Crace 396 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
arital property statute); (fact that benefits are not readily available until a number of contingencies have occurred does not exclude their consideration as marital property); (firefighter pension benefits are property to be considered by the court in division of marital property); -98 (Minn.1983) (applying Faus, Jensen, and Elliott).
Marriage of Brink v. Brink 396 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Brink v. Brink 396 N.W.2d 95 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Tasker v. Tasker 395 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Tasker v. Tasker 395 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson 393 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1986