Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Doering v. Doering, 385 N.W.2d 387.

29 citing documents.

In the Marriage of: Alisha Christine Steinolfson v. Christopher Steingrimur Steinolfson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Marriage of: Alisha Christine Steinolfson v. Christopher Steingrimur Steinolfson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 750, 751–53 (Minn. App. 1987); –92 (Minn. App. 1986); –71 (Minn. App. 1993); rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Onori Hansen v. Jay Ralph Hansen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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).
In re the Marriage of: Towobola Abimbola Oladejo v. Olanrewaju Muideen Oladejo Minn. Ct. App. 2025
And while a district court may trace the source of property based on testimony, Doering v. Doering , there was no testimony on whether the payments on the mortgage since the valuation date came from marital or nonmarital property.
In re the Marriage of: Jacob Juta v. Fte-Hudani Achinge 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).
In re the Marriage of: Renee Caroline McGeary v. John Patrick McGeary Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that appellate courts defer to the district court’s credibility determinations); -91 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that the district court did not err by determining value of property based on a party’s testimony).
In re the Marriage of: Bette Lou Gubbe Slag v. David Alan Slag 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: Xiaoyan Sun v. Qiang Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Bury v. Bury , (noting that parties are presumptively competent to testify to the value of their assets); - 91 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that district court did not err by finding value of property based on a party’s testimony).
In re the Marriage of: Jerry Arthur McDonald v. Donna Arnela McDonald, n/k/a Donna Arnela Rosenblad Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Clark Donald Kaml v. Shannon Marie Skarphol-Kaml Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(noting that parties are presumptively competent to testify to the value of their assets); -91 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that district court did not err by finding value of property based on one party’s testimony).
In re the Marriage of: Kathy Marie Fowler v. Jeffrey Allen Fowler Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Kelly John Brown v. Shawn Marie Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Elizabeth Solinsky, n/k/a Jessica Elizabeth Grimm v. Joseph Clark Solinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Donald William McIsaac v. Nadine S. Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The party 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 9 property.” see also Risk ex rel.
In re the Marriage of: Patricia Rose Whipps v. Richard Cordell Whipps Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-91 (Minn. App. 1986); see also Risk ex rel.
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–91 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that the district court’s decision to base its valuation on one party’s estimate was not clearly erroneous).
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Trovato v. Vincent Henry Trovato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Nicole Marie Trovato v. Vincent Henry Trovato Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (affirming the district court’s resolution of conflicting testimony regarding the amount of a party’s nonmarital interest in the homestead).
RISK EX REL. MILLER v. Stark 787 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
RISK EX REL. MILLER v. Stark 787 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
2 (ruling that, if believed, oral testimony can be sufficient to trace a non-marital interest).
Marriage of Kerr v. Kerr 770 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Marriage of Kerr v. Kerr 770 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See, (affirming district court’s resolution of conflicting testimony regarding degree of party’s nonmarital interest in homestead).
Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain 615 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Marriage of Chamberlain v. Chamberlain 615 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-91 (Minn.App.1986) (district court is in the best position to determine credibility).
Crosby v. Crosby 587 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Crosby v. Crosby 587 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Marriage of Wiegers v. Wiegers 467 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Wiegers v. Wiegers 467 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1991