Marriage of Stevens v. Stevens

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Marriage of Stevens v. Stevens

300 N.W.2d 1, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1654

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 26, 1980

Docket51132

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 300 N.W.2d 1 (Marriage of Stevens v. Stevens) 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

Marriage of Stevens v. Stevens, 300 N.W.2d 1, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1654 (Mich. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

SHERAN, Chief Justice.

This case presents an appeal from a judgment of the Hennepin County District Court dissolving the parties’ marriage and ordering a property settlement. Among the assets owned by each of the parties was a house in Hennepin County which the parties held in joint tenancy. The trial court gave the respondent sole title to this property, free and clear of any interest held by the petitioner, and it ordered the petitioner to make and deliver a quitclaim deed to the respondent conveying her interest in the premises to him. The trial court is accorded broad discretion in dividing property on dissolution of a marriage, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion. Bogen v. Bogen, 261 N.W.2d 606 (Minn.1977). Since the trial court’s disposition of the house under the facts of this case was not a clear abuse of its discretion, we affirm this part of the lower court’s judgment.

The record also indicates that the parties jointly executed an unsecured promissory note in the amount of $20,000 to National City Bank, Minneapolis, shortly before their purchase of the house. The record indicates that the proceeds of this loan were used, at least in part, to make a downpayment on the property and that part of this loan remains unpaid. Since the trial court’s judgment granted the respondent sole title to the property, it is not just and equitable to hold the petitioner jointly liable on this note. We therefore remand on this issue so the lower court can take appropriate action consistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part; remanded in part.

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

SHERAN, Chief Justice.

This case presents an appeal from a judgment of the Hennepin County District Court dissolving the parties’ marriage and ordering a property settlement. Among the assets owned by each of the parties was a house in Hennepin County which the parties held in joint tenancy. The trial court gave the respondent sole title to this property, free and clear of any interest held by the petitioner, and it ordered the petitioner to make and deliver a quitclaim deed to the respondent conveying her interest in the premises to him. The trial court is accorded broad discretion in dividing property on dissolution of a marriage, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion. Bogen v. Bogen, 261 N.W.2d 606 (Minn.1977). Since the trial court’s disposition of the house under the facts of this case was not a clear abuse of its discretion, we affirm this part of the lower court’s judgment.

The record also indicates that the parties jointly executed an unsecured promissory note in the amount of $20,000 to National City Bank, Minneapolis, shortly before their purchase of the house. The record indicates that the proceeds of this loan were used, at least in part, to make a downpayment on the property and that part of this loan remains unpaid. Since the trial court’s judgment granted the respondent sole title to the property, it is not just and equitable to hold the petitioner jointly liable on this note. We therefore remand on this issue so the lower court can take appropriate action consistent with this opinion.

Affirmed in part; remanded in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 N.W.2d 1, 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marriage-of-stevens-v-stevens-minn-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack