Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Lynch v. Lynch, 411 N.W.2d 263.

20 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2020
McCulloch v. McCulloch , ().
In re the Marriage of: Jeffrey Herman Goldenberg, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Lynch v. Lynch , (“The trial court found that [the spouse seeking maintenance] is chronically ill and presently disabled with no clear prognosis for recovery.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Gregory Olstad, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The relevant inquiry in determining whether money is gross income is whether it is a “periodic payment to an individual.” Haefele, d at 710 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 518A.29(a)); see Lynch v. Lynch , (“Bonuses which provide a dependable source of income may properly be included in calculation of future income”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Tamara Ann Fonoti, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[D]ebts are apportioned as part of the property settlement and are treated in the same manner as the division of assets.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And this court has previously explained that “[b]onuses which provide a depe ndable source of income may properly be included in calculation of future income.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In dissolution actions, debts are apportioned as part of the property settlement and are treated in the same manner as the division of assets.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Bonuses which provide a dependable source of income may properly be included in calculation of future income.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Pamela Kay Beltrand v. Thomas Leo Beltrand Minn. Ct. App. 2014
15, 2011); (“Bonuses which provide a dependable source of income may properly be included in calculation of future income.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Marriage of McConnell v. McConnell 710 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of McConnell v. McConnell 710 N.W.2d 583 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
“[Pjoor health is a proper reason for awarding permanent maintenance.” (affirming a permanent-maintenance award when the parties enjoyed an affluent lifestyle during the marriage and the obligee, a homemaker during the parties’ almost 30-year marriage, was “chronically ill and presently disabled with no clear prognosis for recovery, without professional training or a
Marriage of Korf v. Korf 553 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Marriage of Korf v. Korf 553 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
review denied (Minn. Oct.
Barnier v. Wells 476 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Barnier v. Wells 476 N.W.2d 795 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
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
Lastly, when a trial court sets a party’s maintenance obligation, “[bjonuses which provide a dependable source of income may properly be included in calculation of future income.” pet.