Boom v. Boom
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- Bollenbach v. BollenbachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Kiesow v. KiesowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- Ronnkvist v. RonnkvistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Kerr v. KerrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
3Cited by5 opinions
- Marriage of Hanson v. HansonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Marriage of Stolp v. StolpCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Redding v. OldewartelCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Marriage of Thompson v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Marriage of Linder v. LinderCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986