Unblurring the Lines: Clarifications and changes to the Custody and Parenting Time statutes in Minnesota. In this episode of Evolving Family Law, Moss & Barnett Attorneys Jana Aune Deach and Jim Vedder discuss recent changes to the Custody and Parenting Time statutes in Minnesota.

In todays episode we discuss the applicability of the Minnesota Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act to marital dissolution proceedings and explore how and when a court might look at how the division of assets and debts might appear to be an attempt to defraud a creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding.

In this episode of Evolving Family Law, the discussion digs deeper into the case law addressing modification of spousal maintenance upon the retirement or impending retirement of an obligor. This episode particularly addresses the Lee Case and the facts and rulings held by the Supreme Court addressing retirement and modification of spousal maintenance. Additional discussion addresses Justice Dietzen's concurrence and his discussion addressing not only defined benefit plans, but defined contribution plans and how as practitioners we should be providing information and guidance to the court as to distinctions and how the appreciation of those retirement assets may be different from the income that is earned on those assets.

With the volume of baby boomers who will be retiring in the next few years, spousal maintenance modifications due to retirement and has become  an significant issue for family law courts in Minnesota.  How do you modify spousal maintenance when you are looking at retirement? At what age can you retire? How does current case law give us insight as to how and when a spousal maintenance payor can retire in good faith?

Jim Vedder and Jana Aune Deach explore procedure and substantive fairness requirements for Prenuptial Agreements in Minnesota.  Procedural fairness and substantive fairness requirements can be difficult to navigate both in the drafting and litigating of Prenuptial Agreements.

Recent court of appeals decisions have addressed the issue of whether negative equity ought to be recognized on a property division. In this episode of Evolving Family Law, Moss & Barnett attorneys Jim Veddar and Jana Deach discuss those issues in detail.

One issue that often is raised in a dissolution proceeding is whether one party dissipated, depleted or depreciated marital assets, and, if so, what remedy is available to the court to compensate the other party.  Jana Deach and Jim Vedder of Moss & Barnett continue their examination of dividing marital assets, and how and when a court addresses the issues of depreciation, dissipation and depletion under Minnesota law.  Specifically, what facts support a finding of dissipation or depletion and in what instances will a court find that someone was accessing those assets for the “necessities of life,” meaning normal and regular living expenses?

On this month's episode of Evolving Family Law, Moss & Barnett attorneys Jana Aune Deach and Jim Vedder explore the Principles of Equitable Division of Assets under Minnesota Law.

How spousal maintenance is addressed and treated in courts around this country varies greatly from state to state.  Many states have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, significant legislative reform to their existing spousal maintenance statutes.  Some states have abolished permanent spousal maintenance.  Other states have greatly limited when and for how long a former spouse may be entitled to receive spousal maintenance.  In today’s episode, we discuss the recent trends in spousal maintenance reform in the United States and touch on what trends we have seen in the Minnesota courts in addressing the issue of spousal maintenance.

In this episode of Evolving Family Law, Moss & Barnett attorney’s Jim Vedder and Jana Deach explore the imputation of income in child support and why it’s different than spousal maintenance.

In this episode of the Evolving Family Law podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys Jana Deach and Jim Vedder continue their discussion of spousal maintenance and when a court can order the imputation of income. Does the court treat spousal maintenance payors and spousal maintenance recipients the same when determining how and when it can impute income? The recent leading case relating to spousal maintenance payors is Melius v. Melius, 765 N.W.2d 411 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). What are the requirements that must be found by the court before it can impute income to a spousal maintenance payor? Have the courts created a double standard?