Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 518A.49 (2026)

Assignment Of Rights; Judgment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The public agency responsible for child support enforcement is joined as a party in each case in which rights are assigned under section 518A.81, subdivision 2. The court administrator shall enter and docket a judgment obtained by operation of law under section 548.091, subdivision 1, in the name of the public agency to the extent that the obligation has been assigned. When arrearages are reduced to judgment under circumstances in which section 548.091 is not applicable, the court shall grant judgment in favor of, and in the name of, the public agency to the extent that the arrearages are assigned. After filing notice of an assignment with the court administrator, who shall enter the notice in the docket, the public agency may enforce a judgment entered before the assignment of rights as if the judgment were granted to it, and in its name, to the extent that the arrearages in that judgment are assigned.

(b) The public authority is a real party in interest in any IV-D case where there has been an assignment of support. In all other IV-D cases, the public authority has a pecuniary interest, as well as an interest in the welfare of the children involved in those cases. The public authority may intervene as a matter of right in those cases to ensure that child support orders are obtained and enforced which provide for an appropriate and accurate level of child, medical, and child care support. If the public authority participates in an IV-D case where the action taken by the public authority requires the use of an attorney's services, the public authority shall be represented by an attorney consistent with the provisions in section 518A.47.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2023 · leading case: Marriage of Wareham v. Wareham, 791 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marriage of Wareham v. Wareham, 791 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 518A.49(b) (2008). Accordingly, it is reasonable in this situation for the Minnesota tribunal to maintain jurisdiction to modify the prior support order, and the CSM erred by concluding that the Minnesota tribunal lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to do…”

In re the Custody of BJL (DOB 1/8/2018), Nicholas T. White v. Adrianna L Loesch, ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 654 (4) (2022) (Title IV- D); Minn. Stat. § 518A.49(b) (2022). In June 2019, the parents and the county stipulated that White and Loesch would share joint legal custody and joint physical custody, that White would have regular parenting time on alternating weekends, and that…”

— Minn. Stat. § 518A.49(b) — 2 cases

Marriage of Wareham v. Wareham, 791 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). “See Minn.Stat. § 518A.49(b) (2008). Accordingly, it is reasonable in this situation for the Minnesota tribunal to maintain jurisdiction to modify the prior support order, and the CSM erred by concluding that the Minnesota tribunal lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to do…”

In re the Custody of BJL (DOB 1/8/2018), Nicholas T. White v. Adrianna L Loesch, ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 654 (4) (2022) (Title IV- D); Minn. Stat. § 518A.49(b) (2022). In June 2019, the parents and the county stipulated that White and Loesch would share joint legal custody and joint physical custody, that White would have regular parenting time on alternating weekends, and that…”

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.