Marriage of Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Marriage of Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re the Marriage of: Donald Floyd Deeble, Jr. v. Hayley Elizabeth Espelien, ... (minnctapp, 2023-12-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re the Marriage of: Donald Floyd Deeble, Jr. v. Hayley Elizabeth Espelien, ...
Minn. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Id. (quoting Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn. 1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Marriage of: James Donald Knight v. Maria Pieternella Knight
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
It found that there was “no reliable evidence of the value of the house on the date of marriage,” which must Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn. 1982). 4 be known to calculate the current value of a nonmarital interest under Dorweiler.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Baker v. Baker
Minn. · 2008 · confidence medium
See Gottsacker, 664 N.W.2d at 852-58 (holding that an Accumulated Adjustment Account (AAA) in a subchapter S corporation was nonmarital property on the dual bases that the wife had no control over distributions from the AAA and that no marital effort increased the value of the wife’s interest in the AAA); Antone, 645 N.W.2d at 103-05 (holding that there was “marital equity” in rental properties to the extent that the rental income during the marriage reduced the properties’ mortgage balances; that there was a marital component to the homestead, even though the husband had bought it bef…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Antone v. Antone (4×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. · 2002 · confidence medium
The remainder of equity increase is characterized as marital property Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Senske v. Senske (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Minn. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re the Marriage of Freeing v. Freeing
Minn. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d. 552, 553 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Nolden v. Nolden
Minn. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn.1982) quoted in Nardini v. Nardini, 414 N.W.2d 184, 191 (Minn.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Nardini v. Nardini
Minn. · 1987 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the real property comprised both marital and nonmarital interests, the interests should be apportioned according to the formula set out in Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nelson v. Nelson
Minn. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
The formula utilized in Schmitz was subsequently refined in Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn.1982): The present value of a nonmarital asset used in the acquisition of marital property is the proportion the net equity or contribution at the time of acquisition bore to the value of the property at the time of purchase multiplied by the value of the property at the time of separation.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marriage of Dammann v. Dammann
Minn. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn.1982); see Faus v. Faus, 319 N.W.2d 408, 412 (Minn.1982); Schmitz v. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748, 750 (Minn.1981).
cited Cited "see" Marriage of Reynolds v. Reynolds
Minn. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited "see" Marriage of Coffel v. Coffel
Minn. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kottke v. Kottke, 353 N.W.2d 633, 635 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. Dec. 20, 1984) (citing Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552 (Minn.1982)).
discussed Cited "see" Marriage of Stroh v. Stroh (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited "see" Marriage of Cummings v. Cummings
Minn. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brown v. Brown, 316 N.W.2d 552, 553 (Minn.1982); see also Schmitz v. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748, 750 (Minn.1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re the Marriage of Earl F. BROWN, Petitioner, Respondent,
v.
Beverly J. BROWN, Appellant
81-786.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Mar 5, 1982.
316 N.W.2d 552
1982 Minn. LEXIS 1476
Richard G. Day, Minneapolis, for appellant., Pokorny & Erickson and Wayne A. Po-korny, Minnetonka, for respondent.
Kelley.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
KELLEY, Justice.

Beverly J. Brown, respondent in this action for dissolution of marriage, appeals from an order of the district court awarding certain property to the petitioner Earl F. Brown. The principal issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in distributing the parties’ homestead according to its apportionment of the increase in equity between the marital and nonmarital interests. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

In Schmitz v. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748 (Minn.1981), we approved the formula by which a trial court might correctly apportion the increase in equity between marital and nonmarital assets enunciated in Woosnam v. Woosnam, 587 S.W.2d 262 (Ky.App.1979). The present value of a nonmarital asset used in the acquisition of marital property is the proportion the net equity or contributioiTat the time of acquisition bore to the value of the property at the time of purchase multiplied by the value of the property at the time of separation. The remainder of equity increase is characterized as marital property and is distributed according to Minn.Stat. § 518.58 (1980).

The trial court here apportioned the increase in equity in the marital and nonmari-tal assets by employing a formula derived by calculating the percentage each of the parties’ contribution of marital and non-marital assets bore to the total contribution to acquire and maintain the homestead. The net equity of the homestead as valued at the time of separation was then multiplied by the percentage attributed to each party. As a result, Earl Brown was awarded approximately 86% of the net equity of the homestead and Beverly Brown, approximately 14%. This was error for the award failed to adequately account for the distinction between the nonmarital and marital character of the homestead property.

We therefore reverse and remand to the trial court for a reexamination of the property distribution as it relates to the apportionment of the increase in equity between the marital and nonmarital assets in accordance with the Woosnam formula as approved in Schmitz v. Schmitz, 309 N.W.2d 748 (Minn.1981). The hearing on remand is limited to this reexamination of the actual distribution and the valuations assigned to the specific items of property by the trial court are affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.