Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ronnkvist v. Ronnkvist, 331 N.W.2d 764.

83 citing documents.

Greer v. Greer 379 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marriage of Fick v. Fick 375 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Fick v. Fick 375 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Nonetheless, exercise of the trial court’s discretion “is not unlimited and should be supported by either clear documentary or testimonial evidence or by comprehensive findings issued by the court.”
Marriage of Gummow v. Gummow 375 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Gummow v. Gummow 375 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Koecher v. Koecher 374 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Koecher v. Koecher 374 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-66 (Minn.1983), where the court stated, “[t]he general rule is that parties to a marital dissolution proceeding have a duty to make a full and accurate disclosure of all assets and liabilities to facilitate the trial court’s property distribution * * *.
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 371 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Carlson v. Carlson 371 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 370 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Larson v. Larson 370 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Frederiksen v. Frederiksen 368 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Frederiksen v. Frederiksen 368 N.W.2d 769 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(holding that the marital estate is determined at the time of the dissolution decree, which for all practical purposes is the time of the dissolution hearing).
Marriage of Otte v. Otte 368 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Otte v. Otte 368 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
A trial court has broad discretion to make property division awards, however, a trial court’s decision must be supported “by either clear documentary or testimonial evidence or by comprehensive findings issued by the court.”
Marriage of Durand v. Durand 367 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Durand v. Durand 367 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
While trial courts are accorded broad discretion in both valuation and distribution of an asset, this discretion is not unlimited and must be based upon “clear documentary or testimonial evidence or by comprehensive findings issued by the court.”
Marriage of Hein v. Hein 366 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Boom v. Boom 367 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Boom v. Boom 367 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Hein v. Hein 366 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
However, exercise of the trial court’s discretion “is not unlimited and should be supported by either clear documentary or testimonial evidence or by comprehensive findings issued by the court.”
Marriage of Trebelhorn v. Uecker 362 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Trebelhorn v. Uecker 362 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Marriage of Guetzkow v. Guetzkow 358 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Guetzkow v. Guetzkow 358 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
However, in order for there to be adequate review, the trial court’s decision must be supported “by either clear documentary or testimonial evidence, or by comprehensive findings issued by the court.”
Marriage of Balogh v. Balogh 356 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Balogh v. Balogh 356 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the court indicated: While we have often stated that trial courts are accorded broad discretion in both the valuation and distribution of an asset, exercise of that discretion is not unlimited and should be supported by either clear documentary or testimonial evidence or by comprehensive findings issu
Johns v. Johns 354 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Johns v. Johns 354 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Beugen v. Beugen 352 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Beugen v. Beugen 352 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Lammi v. Lammi 348 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Marriage of Lammi v. Lammi 348 N.W.2d 372 Minn. Ct. App. 1984