Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 518.22 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1951 c 551 s 15]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1944–1968 · leading case: Johnson v. Johnson, 84 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. 1957).
Johnson v. Johnson, 84 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. 1957). “1949, § 518.22, in fixing the amount of permanent alimony.”
Loth v. Loth, 35 N.W.2d 542 (Minn. 1949). “The statute (§ 518.22) pro *399 vides that the award shall not “exceed in present value one-third of the * * * .”
McKey v. McKey, 36 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 1949). “Based upon the trial court’s findings of fact as to the amount and nature of the husband’s estate, earnings, and income, was the award of alimony to plaintiff contrary to law as being in excess of the statutory one-third? It is elementary that the provisions of § 518.22,…”
Warner v. Warner, 17 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1944). “1941, § 518.22 (Mason St. 1927, § 8602), reads: *66 “Upon a divorce for any cause except that of adultery committed by the wife, if the estate and property restored or awarded to her is insufficient for the suitable support of herself and such children of the marriage as shall…”
Baker v. Baker, 28 N.W.2d 164 (Minn. 1947). “§ 518.22, prescribes the limitations within which the trial court must exercise its discretion in awarding alimony and in decreeing to the wife a portion of her husband’s real and personal property.”
Swanson v. Swanson, 46 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. 1951). “These statutory limitations do not give the wife a right to any fixed minimum share in the husband’s property and income, but simply establish limitations as to maximum amounts beyond which the trial court in the exercise of its discretion may not go in making its award.”
Louden v. Louden, 22 N.W.2d 164 (Minn. 1946). “The trial court found defendant’s present state of health not to be good and that her earning power was therefore limited.”
Borchert v. Borchert, 154 N.W.2d 902 (Minn. 1967). “While the trial court made no finding on the allegation of adultery and we do not propose to do so, in the light of the evidence in this record it should be said that prior to 1951 the adultery of the wife might have barred her right to any alimony, Minn.”
Ruprecht v. Ruprecht, 96 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 1959). “22, the trial court may properly take into consideration the entire value of any property held by the parties in joint tenancy when it appears that such property was acquired with funds supplied by the husband. In effecting a property settlement, the husband is not to be…”
Gerard v. Gerard, 13 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 1944). “§ 518.22 (§ 8602). Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn.”
Cozik v. Cozik, 155 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. 1968). “1949, § 518.22. Other provisions provided for awarding to the wife her own property, alimony, etc.”
Potter v. Potter, 27 N.W.2d 784 (Minn. 1947). “The statute vests in the trial court very broad powers in matters of alimony and allowance to the wife in divorce suits.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.