Legal Opinion

Boom v. Boom

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 23, 1985No. C2-83-1956PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SEDGWICK, Judge.

Appellant Rolland Boom and respondent Eleanor Boom both challenge the trial court’s division of property. Rolland also alleges the trial court erred: (1) in amending its judgment decree without any findings, explanation or justification; and (2) awarding Eleanor attorney fees. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Rolland and respondent Eleanor Boom were married in 1951. They separated and this action was commenced after 19 years of marriage on October 8, 1970. The trial on the dissolution took place in March 1983, 13 years after the action was commenced. No reason is given for this…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bollenbach v. BollenbachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  2. Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  3. Kiesow v. KiesowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
  4. Ronnkvist v. RonnkvistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  5. Kerr v. KerrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Marriage of Hanson v. HansonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  2. Marriage of Stolp v. StolpCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  3. Redding v. OldewartelCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  4. Marriage of Thompson v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  5. Marriage of Linder v. LinderCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API