Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 518A.71 (2026)

Security; Sequestration; Contempt

✓ current as of May 2026

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

In all cases when maintenance or support payments are ordered, the court may require sufficient security to be given for the payment of them according to the terms of the order. Upon neglect or refusal to give security, or upon failure to pay the maintenance or support, the court may sequester the obligor's personal estate and the rents and profits of real estate of the obligor, and appoint a receiver of them. The court may cause the personal estate and the rents and profits of the real estate to be applied according to the terms of the order. The obligor is presumed to have an income from a source sufficient to pay the maintenance or support order. A child support or maintenance order constitutes prima facie evidence that the obligor has the ability to pay the award. If the obligor disobeys the order, it is prima facie evidence of contempt. The court may cite the obligor for contempt under this section, section 518A.72, or chapter 588.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: Marriage of Zaldivar v. Rodriguez, 819 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Marriage of Zaldivar v. Rodriguez, 819 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 518A.71 (2010). Accordingly, the child-support obligor “is presumed to have an income from a source sufficient to pay the maintenance or support order.”

State ex rel. Comm'r of Human Servs. v. Buchmann, 830 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 518A.71. But just as respondent has disregarded his support obligation, so has he disregarded his own right to have the support amount reviewed.”

In re the Marriage of: Todd James Lindsey v. Shirley June Lindsey (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 518A.71 (2014). Whether to require security for maintenance and how much security to require are matters within the discretion of the district court.”

In re the Marriage of: Paul Grant Gardner v. Margaret Rose Gardner (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 518A.71 (2014). Whether to require security for a maintenance obligation and how much security to require are within the district court’s broad discretion, and this court reviews such determinations for an abuse of discretion.”

In re the Marriage of: Brenda Lee Christiansen v. Timothy Nels Christiansen, ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Wife asserts that the district court effectively reduced husband’s life insurance obligation by requiring him to maintain his existing $90,000 policy. A district court has discretion to secure a spousal-maintenance obligation by requiring an obligor to obtain and maintain life…”

In Re the Marriage of Joshua Laurance Patterson v. Rebecca Marie Patterson, ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “Upon neglect or refusal to give security, or upon failure to pay the maintenance or support, the court may sequester the obligor’s personal estate and the rents and profits of real estate of the obligor, and appoint a receiver of them. The court may cause the personal estate and…”

In re the Marriage of: Holly v. Anderson v. Derrik T. Anderson (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “19, 1992); see also Minn. Stat. § 518A.71 (2014) (“[T]he court may require sufficient security to be given for the payment of [maintainance] .”

In re the Marriage of: Marianne Ronate Reis v. Thomas Michael Hallberg (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 518A.39, subd. 3 (2014). But a district court “may require sufficient security to be given for the payment of [maintenance] according to the terms of the order.”

In re the Marriage of: Sharon Alice Gribble v. William Daniel Gribble (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 518A.71 (2014) (allowing a district court to require “sufficient security” for maintenance or support payments).”

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.