Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 518. MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 518.6111 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Renumbered 518A.53]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2003–2010 · leading case: Rooney v. Rooney, 669 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rooney v. Rooney, 669 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 138× “Appellant Christ's Household of Faith (CHOF) challenges the district court's determination *366 that it is a "payor of funds" under Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (2002), for child support withholding purposes, contending that the application of that statute to CHOF results in excessive…”
Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber, 714 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 6× “6195 (2004); see also Minn.Stat. § 518.6111, subd. 7(a), (b) (2004) (authorizing administrative income withholding even if the court ignores its obligation to address it in the initial child support order); Minn.”
Wick v. Wick, 670 N.W.2d 599 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “615 or Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 that provides that either statute is a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a payor of funds for any reason beyond a contempt action under Minn.”
Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 518.6111 (2000).” (emphasis added)). Thus, under the statute, for a “IV-D case” to exist, “a party” must have “assigned” his or her right to receive support to the state or “applied for” the requisite child-support services.”
Rooney v. Rooney, 782 N.W.2d 572 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “611 was repealed and replaced by Minn.Stat. § 518.6111 (Supp.1997). 1997 Minn.”
Marriage of Gerber v. Gerber, 694 N.W.2d 573 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Whenever a support order is initially entered or modified, the full amount of the support order must be subject to income withholding from the income of the obli-gor.” At the time the judgment in this case was entered, a wage-withholding provision was not mandatory but was…”
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.