Hansen v. Hansen

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Hansen v. Hansen

275 N.W.2d 52, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1378

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 26, 1979

DocketNo. 48451

StatusPublished

This text of 275 N.W.2d 52 (Hansen v. Hansen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hansen v. Hansen, 275 N.W.2d 52, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1378 (Mich. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James P. Hansen appeals from the judgment and decree of marriage dissolution entered in the Hennepin County District Court, claiming that the award of alimony, the property division and the award of attorneys fees are not supported by the record and constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. We affirm.

This court has held on numerous occasions that a trial court is accorded broad discretion with respect to the division of property, the allowance of alimony and the award of attorneys fees and that, absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court’s findings and awards will not be disturbed. Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 365, 242 N.W.2d 103 (1976); Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 175 N.W.2d 148 (1970); Minn.St. 518.14; and Solon v. Solon, 255 N.W.2d 395 (Minn.1977). Our review of the record as a whole leads to the conclusion that there has been no such abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

James P. Hansen appeals from the judgment and decree of marriage dissolution entered in the Hennepin County District Court, claiming that the award of alimony, the property division and the award of attorneys fees are not supported by the record and constitute an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. We affirm.

This court has held on numerous occasions that a trial court is accorded broad discretion with respect to the division of property, the allowance of alimony and the award of attorneys fees and that, absent a clear abuse of discretion, the court’s findings and awards will not be disturbed. Peterson v. Peterson, 308 Minn. 365, 242 N.W.2d 103 (1976); Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 175 N.W.2d 148 (1970); Minn.St. 518.14; and Solon v. Solon, 255 N.W.2d 395 (Minn.1977). Our review of the record as a whole leads to the conclusion that there has been no such abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 N.W.2d 52, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-v-hansen-minn-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack