Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Wiegers v. Wiegers, 467 N.W.2d 342.

24 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“When nonmarital and marital property are commingled, the nonmarital investment may lose that character unless it can be readily traced.” d 342, 344 (Minn. App. 1991).
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
But “[w]hen nonmarital and marital property are commingled, the nonmarital investment may lose that character unless it can be readily traced.”
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A spouse claiming that property is nonmarital must prove the necessary underlying facts by a preponderance of the evidence.” Wiegers v. Wiegers
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Third, “[w]hen nonmarital and marital property are commingled, the nonmarital investment may lose that character unless it can be readily traced.” see Baker, d at 653 (noting this aspect of Wiegers).
In re the Marriage of: Jessica Elizabeth Solinsky, n/k/a Jessica Elizabeth Grimm, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
see Baker v. Baker , (noting this aspect of the Wiegers opinion).
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“When nonmarital and marital property are commingled, the nonmarital investment may lose that character unless it can be readily traced.” Wiegers 10 v. Wiegers, (Mi nn.
A19-1182 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But “[w]hen nonmarital and marital property are commingled, the nonmarital investment may lose that character unless it can be readily traced.”
A18-1408 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But if nonmarital and marital property are commingled, “the nonmarital investment may lose that character unless it can be readily traced.” Wiegers v. Wiegers , .
In re the Marriage of: Lynn J. Dreger, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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
But “[w]hen nonmarital and marital property are commingled, the nonmarital investment may lose that character unless it can be readily traced.”
In re the Marriage of: James Donald Knight v. Maria Pieternella Knight Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: James Donald Knight v. Maria Pieternella Knight Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[w]hen nonmarital and marital property are commingled, the nonmarital investment may lose that character unless it can be readily traced.”
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 753 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Baker v. Baker 753 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2008
See, (“When nonmarital and marital property are commingled, the nonmarital investment may lose that character unless it can be readily traced.”).
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Marriage of Zander v. Zander 720 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
A party claiming a nonmarital interest in property “must prove the necessary underlying facts by a preponderance of the evidence.” Wiegers *369 v. Wiegers
Marriage of Gottsacker v. Gottsacker 664 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 2003
Marriage of Gottsacker v. Gottsacker 664 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 2003
(designating the interest earned from nonmarital certificates of deposit as marital property without explicitly relying on Nardini).
Marriage Of: Wopata v. Wopata 498 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage Of: Wopata v. Wopata 498 N.W.2d 478 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Marriage of Swick v. Swick 467 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Marriage of Swick v. Swick 467 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
5; Nardini, d at 193-94 (cash dividends from stock); (interest earned from nonmarital certificates of deposit); (interest earned from stock debentures); Rosenberg, d at 583 (stock proceeds); -77 (Minn.App.1985) (rental income); Pearson v. Pearson, 363 N.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by