Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Rask v. Rask, 445 N.W.2d 849.

34 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Ryan Russell Preusse v. Amanda Jayne Preusse Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In re the Marriage of: Ryan Russell Preusse v. Amanda Jayne Preusse Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We have reversed spousal maintenance awards when, based on an analysis of the obligor’s net income, we concluded the amount of the award was unreasonably high.” (concluding that award consuming 54% of the obligor’s net monthly income is unreasonably high).
In re the Marriage of: Craig Jerald Mackey v. Beth Ann Mackey Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court cannot award a tentative mortgage payment where a party “merely estimate[s]” that a certain monthly payment amount “would be required to purchase the type of home she wants.” (quotation marks omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Christiansen v. Timothy Nels Christiansen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Christiansen v. Timothy Nels Christiansen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In re the Marriage of: Mark David Plucinski v. Ellen Marie Budzynski Minn. Ct. App. 2022
1; (affirming an award of conduct-based attorney fees under Minn. Stat. § 518.14 (198 8) because a party “refused to cooperate in discovery”).
In re the Marriage of: Jeannine Colleen Scott Salchow, n/k/a Jeannine Colleen Farnsworth v. Kenneth Joe Salchow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Husband argues the district court’s
In re the Marriage of: Caryn Blaine Evans v. Keith Eric Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: James Patrick Pnewski v. Joan Susanne Pnewski Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellant argues that this court’s , makes the continued inclusion of the $1,750 mortgage payment in respondent’s budget improper because respondent is not currently making such a payment.
In re the Marriage of: Timothy John Goettl v. Tonna Lorraine Goettl Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When addressing the amount of a maintenance award, “[n]o single statutory factor is controlling and each case must be determined on its own facts.”
In re the Marriage of: Paul Matthias Hobday v. Mary Kay Hobday Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Christina L. Suhsen v. Karl W. Suhsen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“No single statutory factor is controlling and each case must be determined on its own facts.”
In re the Marriage of: Lauri Sue Browning v. Daniel H. Gruenstein Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Marriage of: Susan Lee Wood v. Brad Wesley Wood Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We have reversed spousal -maintenance awards when, “based on an analysis of the obligor’s net income, we concluded the amount of the award was unreasonably high.” Rask v. Rask , (concluding that an award consuming 54% of the obligor’s net income is unreasonably high).
In re the Marriage of: Justin James Jurkovich v. Rebecca Jean Jurkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Tracy Wong Belcher v. Benjamin Moore Belcher, III Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Rask v. Rask , Kostelnik v. Kostelnik , review denied (Minn. July 26 , 1985).
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Christopher John Anton v. Romona L. Sparks, f/k/a Romona L. Anton Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(affirming a conduct-based attorney fee award where it had “some support in the record”).
In re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Matthew John Miller v. Jody Lynn Bichrt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that district court erred by including mortgage payment in wife’s monthly expenses when record contained no evidence “concerning when or whether” wife would begin incurring mortgage expense).
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: James Walter Shaw v. Barbara Ann Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “[a] [district] court’s calculation of living expenses must be supported by the evidence.”
In re the Marriage of: Lian Yang McGaughey v. William Howard Taft McGaughey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Lian Yang McGaughey v. William Howard Taft McGaughey, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–54 (Minn. App. 1989) (considering interest on prudent investments within spousal-maintenance analysis).
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
While factual findings regarding monthly expenses in a spousal-maintenance calculation “must be upheld unless clearly erroneous,” “[a] [district] court’s calculation of living expenses must be supported by the evidence.”
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
“A [district] court’s calculation of living expenses must be supported by the evidence.”
Beverly Alto v. Kenneth Alto Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Beverly Alto v. Kenneth Alto Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(reversing a district court’s inclusion in a maintenance recipient’s expenses of an expense when “[t]here [was] no evidence in the record concerning when respondent will begin incurring this expense, or whether she ever will”).
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
d 4 630, 634 (Minn. App. 2007) (referring to the “speculative mortgage payment”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Distinguished Marriage of Kampf v. Kampf 732 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
First, in which the court of appeals excluded a speculative mortgage payment from a maintenance award.