Johnson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 18 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41489,41489 |
| Citation | 284 Minn. 181,169 N.W.2d 595 |
| Parties | Eleanor H. JOHNSON, Respondent, v. Arnold E. JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In an action for divorce where the issue of the division of the property acquired during coverture is presented, the court shall determine the issue with finality as contemplated by Minn.St. 518.64 unless the circumstances justify reserving the issue for future determination. Held, upon the record in this case, no justification for a failure to make a division of jointly owned property of the parties exists, and the case is therefore remanded for a reconsideration and redetermination of that issue, as well as the question of the alimony to be awarded to the plaintiff.
Ruttenberg, Orren, Griswold & Cohen, St. Paul, for appellant.
Doherty, Rumble & Butler, and Boyd H. Ratchye, Hitchcock & Hitchcock, St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and OTIS, ROGOSHESKE, SHERAN, and PETERSON, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment and decree of divorce and from two orders of the trial court denying defendant's motions for amended findings of fact, one of which also denied a new trial.
The only issue properly presented to us for review on this appeal is whether a trial court when granting a divorce may, in the absence of special circumstances, leave the real property acquired by the parties during coverture in joint tenancy pending a determination of their rights by the court at some indeterminate future date.
During their marriage, plaintiff, Eleanor H. Johnson, and defendant, Arnold E. Johnson, acquired personal property in the form of corporate stock, a savings certificate, and cash, as well as approximately 25 acres of largely undeveloped real estate in Ramsey County. During the 7-day trial of plaintiff's action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and defendant's cross-complaint on the same ground, the parties bitterly contested the issues of custody of the four children of the marriage, division of the property acquired during coverture, and alimony for the plaintiff.
The trial court granted an absolute divorce, 1 awarded custody of the oldest daughter to plaintiff and of the three younger children to defendant, divided the parties' personal property equally between them, and granted plaintiff $200 per month as permanent alimony. In addition, the trial court made the following disposition of the real property acquired by the parties during coverture and owned jointly by them:
'That the real property owned jointly by the plaintiff and defendant and described as follows, to-wit:
'The Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 28, Range 22, except the Southerly 450 feet of the Westerly 250 feet thereof, and except the northerly 362 feet and except the westerly 40 feet thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota, 25 acres more or less(,)
'shall not be divided at this time, but the title shall remain in the parties' joint names, subject to further orders of the court.
'That if either party should die while the property is held in joint tenancy, then the title to the property shall vest in the names of the surviving joint tenant and the children born of this marriage, namely, Karen Johnson, Holly Johnson, Mark Johnson, and Lynn Johnson as joint tenants.'
Defendant contends that an award of an undivided interest in the real property of the marriage subject to future orders of the court is in direct conflict with Minn.St. 518.64, which provides:
'* * * Except for an award of the right of occupancy of the homestead, all divisions of real and personal property provided by sections 518.58 and 518.59 Shall be final * * *.' (Italics supplied.)
It is clear that the trial court failed to make a final award of the real property in this case. Instead, plaintiff was awarded an undivided one-half interest in the property subject to future orders of the court. The only apparent reason for this unusual award seems to have been a hope by the trial court that after a period of time in which to 'cool off,' the parties would be able to reach an amicable agreement on the disposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Columbia Heights Sch. Dist., A13–0768.
...1 (Minn.1988); Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 284 N.W.2d 180, 184 n. 7 (Minn.1979); Johnson v. Johnson, 284 Minn. 181, 182 n. 1, 169 N.W.2d 595, 596 n. 1 (1969); Annis v. Annis, 250 Minn. 256, 262–63, 84 N.W.2d 256, 261 (1957); Pierce v. Grand Army of the Republic, 220 ......
-
Bogen v. Bogen
...penalty of losing his life estate in the property. Iver Bogen challenges this award as contrary to the holding of Johnson v. Johnson, 284 Minn. 181, 169 N.W.2d 595 (1969). In Johnson, this court reversed the trial court, finding it an abuse of discretion to award each of the parties in a bi......
-
Appleton v. Bohart, 2:17-CV-0327-TOR
...do not have the authority to award children any property interest in a divorce proceeding under Minnesota law. Id.; see Johnson v. Johnson, 169 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. 1969); see also Snyder v. Snyder, 202 N.W.3d 504 (Minn. Ct. App. 1972). Plaintiff responds that she has a legally protected inter......
-
Miller v. Miller
...of the marriage a potential interest in the real property their parents had acquired during the marriage. Johnson v. Johnson , 284 Minn. 181, 169 N.W.2d 595, 597 (1969). In Johnson , the district court did not divide the parties’ real property and ordered that "if either party should die wh......
-
Realism and Formalism in the Severance of Joint Tenancies
...v. Miller, 298 So. 2d 704 (Miss. 1974). 87. See e.g., OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 5302.20(c)(5) (Anderson 1996). 88. See Johnson v. Johnson, 169 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. 1969); see also Snyder v. Snyder, 212 N.W.2d 869 (Minn. 1973); Wos v. Wos, 191 N.W.2d 829 (Minn. 1971). 89. See Porter v. Porter, 472 ......