Braatz v. Braatz

8 Citing cases

  1. Huizinga v. Huizinga

    529 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 3 times
    Holding COLA for support obligations mandatory if statute applied unless obligor could demonstrate insufficient increase to support adjustment

    Minn.Stat. ยง 518.641, subd. 3 (1992). In Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 265 (Minn.App. 1992), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992), this court affirmed the district court's adjustment of the obligor's child support obligation based on the increase in the cost-of-living during the previous four years.

  2. Anderson v. Anderson

    897 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 10 times

    She argues that she was entitled to a retroactive COLA because she provided the statutory COLA notice and husband neither objected nor produced evidence regarding whether the COLA should be implemented. We initially note that the two cases upon which wife relies, Huizinga v. Huizinga , 529 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. App. 1995), and Braatz v. Braatz , 489 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992), are distinguishable.

  3. IN RE LORI D. SCHMIDT v. SCHMIDT

    No. C5-02-49 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 2, 2002)

    In reviewing a child-support magistrate's decision or a district court's decision on a cost-of-living adjustment, we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264-65 (Minn.App. 1992) (noting that district court has discretion to determine whether COLA should take effect), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992) ; McClenahan v. Warner, 461 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Minn.App. 1990) (noting same).

  4. Egwim v. Egwim

    No. A18-1731 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2019)

    A CSM's discretion is limited to whether the COLA should take effect. Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992).

  5. In re Marriage of Hustoft

    No. A03-240 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2003)

    The obligor bears the burden of showing why the presumptively applicable COLA should not take effect. Huizinga v. Huizinga, 529 N.W.2d 512, 514 (Minn.App. 1995) (citing Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 165 (Minn.App. 1992)). Under the statute, the obligor must show an "insufficient . . . increase in income" that "prevents fulfillment of the adjusted . . . obligation.

  6. In re Petroski v. Petroski

    No. C9-00-1961 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2001)   Cited 1 times
    Determining that, if the movant makes a prima facie showing, then an evidentiary hearing is required for legal-custody modifications

    The district court's decision to grant or deny a cost of living adjustment is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264-65 (Minn.App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992).

  7. In re Marriage of Pistoria

    No. C3-99-1916 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2000)

    1999). If the obligor fails to request a hearing on the issue of whether the adjustment should take effect, the adjustment may be made. Minn. Stat. ยง 518.641, subd. 2(c). If the obligor requests a hearing, the district court's discretion "is limited to determining whether all or part of the cost-of-living adjustment should not take effect." Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1992).

  8. In re Benavides v. Benavides

    No. C4-99-1374 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2000)

    The discretion of the district court is limited to determining whether all or part of the COLA increase should take effect. Braatz v. Braatz, 489 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1992).