Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialdivorcechild custodycivil procedure
appealtrialdivorcechild custodycivil procedure

Related Cases

Fanning v. Fanning, 828 S.W.2d 135
View Case »
MacMeekin v. Low Income Housing Institute, Inc., 111 Wash.App. 188, 45 P.3d 570
View Case »
Bessemer Land & Improvement Co. v. Jenkins, 111 Ala. 135, 18 So. 565, 56 Am.St.Rep. 26
View Case »
Dowdell v. Bloomquist, 847 A.2d 827
View Case »
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158, 3 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 175, 3 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8137, 88 P.U.R.3d 90
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 206 N.W.2d 347

Facts

The husband appealed from a judgment for divorce, not contesting the divorce or child custody awarded to the wife, but objecting to the property distribution. The trial court awarded the wife all property acquired during the marriage except for the landscape business operated by the husband. The wife, a school teacher, was awarded $200 per month for support of their two teenage children. Disputed evidence existed regarding the values of three real estate holdings and the husband's annual earnings from the landscape business, but no evidence was presented on the business's value itself.

The husband appealed from a judgment for divorce, not contesting the divorce or child custody awarded to the wife, but objecting to the property distribution. The trial court awarded the wife all property acquired during the marriage except for the landscape business operated by the husband.

Issue

Did the trial court err in its distribution of property by failing to make necessary findings of fact regarding the value of the landscape business?

Did the trial court err in its distribution of property by failing to make necessary findings of fact regarding the value of the landscape business?

Rule

Rule 52.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the court to find facts specially and state its conclusions of law in actions tried upon the facts without a jury.

Rule 52.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the court to find facts specially and state its conclusions of law in actions tried upon the facts without a jury.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the trial court's failure to make findings of fact and determined that, while there was some evidence regarding the values of the real estate holdings, there was a lack of evidence to ascertain the value of the landscape business. The court emphasized that without clear findings, it could not uphold the trial court's decision regarding property distribution.

The Supreme Court analyzed the trial court's failure to make findings of fact and determined that, while there was some evidence regarding the values of the real estate holdings, there was a lack of evidence to ascertain the value of the landscape business.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for the necessary findings of fact to support its property distribution decision.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for the necessary findings of fact to support its property distribution decision.

Who won?

The wife prevailed in the divorce proceedings, as the court granted her the divorce and child custody, but the property distribution was remanded for further findings.

The wife prevailed in the divorce proceedings, as the court granted her the divorce and child custody, but the property distribution was remanded for further findings.

You must be