Maskrey v. Maskrey

4 Citing cases

  1. Nicollet County v. Larson

    413 N.W.2d 217 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 1 times

    Minn.Stat. § 256.87, subd. 1 (1986); Maskrey v. Maskrey, 380 N.W.2d 598, 601 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). This proceeding is independent of actions for recovery of unpaid child support awarded in a prior dissolution proceeding.

  2. Johnson v. Johnson

    902 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 23 times
    Noting that "[o]nce the time to appeal a decision of the district court expires, that ruling is final, even if it is wrong"

    Indemnity is the remedy securing "the right of a person to recover reimbursement from another for the discharge of a liability which, as between himself and the other, should have been discharged by the other." Maskrey v. Maskrey , 380 N.W.2d 598, 601 (Minn.App. 1986) (quotation omitted). Generally, an indemnitor's obligation to indemnify is triggered only after the indemnitee has suffered "actual loss or damage."

  3. State o.b.o. Hendrickson v. Hendrickson

    403 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 7 times
    In Hendrickson, this court examined a county's action under Minn. Stat. § 256.87 as it related to modification of a child-support award and determined that "[a]n order for reimbursement under § 256.87 is an additional remedy available to the county if it has advanced public assistance for a child, and it is not a modification of a child support award under § 518.

    Section 256.87 has been identified as a cause of action totally separate from child support orders, available to the county for the purpose of recovering a portion of past assistance granted. County of Anoka v. Richards, 345 N.W.2d 263, 266-67 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); see Maskrey v. Maskrey, 380 N.W.2d 598, 601 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). An order for reimbursement under § 256.87 is an additional remedy available to the county if it has advanced public assistance for a child, and it is not a modification of a child support award under § 518. Isanti County v. Formhals, 358 N.W.2d 703, 705 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).

  4. State ex rel. Region VIII North Welfare ex rel. Evans v. Evans

    402 N.W.2d 158 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 8 times
    In Evans we explicitly addressed the issue of whether imposition of liability under section 256.87 is mandatory or within the discretion of the court.

    Case law interpretations of this section establish the discretionary nature of the cause of action and the granting of relief. In In Re the Marriage of Maskrey v. Maskrey, 380 N.W.2d 598 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986), this court stated that § 256.87 "allows the county * * to bring an action to require a parent to pay at least a portion of AFDC expended over a two-year period, depending on the parent's ability to pay." Id. at 601.