Wichelman v. Wichelman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Wichelman v. Wichelman

236 N.W.2d 792, 306 Minn. 558, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1285

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 12, 1975

DocketNo. 45608

StatusPublished

This text of 236 N.W.2d 792 (Wichelman v. Wichelman) 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

Wichelman v. Wichelman, 236 N.W.2d 792, 306 Minn. 558, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1285 (Mich. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from the denial of his blended motion for amended findings, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, and from the judgment entered. While the parties were married, defendant obtained a loan to finance a trip to Europe. Plaintiff signed the required note as an accommodation party and thereafter repaid the loan. The parties meanwhile having been divorced, he brought this action to recover the amount paid. Among several other defenses, defendant asserted the money had been used in part for necessities plaintiff was obliged to furnish her. The lower court found $400 had been spent for necessities and offset this amount against plaintiff’s claim. The sole question presented here is whether the trial court erred in so finding. We have reviewed the record and find that the evidence as a whole sustains the trial court’s findings. Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37, 42, 173 N. W. 2d 921, 924 (1970).

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from the denial of his blended motion for amended findings, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, and from the judgment entered. While the parties were married, defendant obtained a loan to finance a trip to Europe. Plaintiff signed the required note as an accommodation party and thereafter repaid the loan. The parties meanwhile having been divorced, he brought this action to recover the amount paid. Among several other defenses, defendant asserted the money had been used in part for necessities plaintiff was obliged to furnish her. The lower court found $400 had been spent for necessities and offset this amount against plaintiff’s claim. The sole question presented here is whether the trial court erred in so finding. We have reviewed the record and find that the evidence as a whole sustains the trial court’s findings. Don Kral Inc. v. Lindstrom, 286 Minn. 37, 42, 173 N. W. 2d 921, 924 (1970).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 N.W.2d 792, 306 Minn. 558, 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wichelman-v-wichelman-minn-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack