Marriage of Stich v. Stich
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2024, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
42 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Dougherty v. Dougherty (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- Marriage of Hemmingsen v. Hemmingsen (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
- Marriage of Stevens v. Stevens (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)
- Marriage of Rogers v. Rogers (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
- In re the Marriage of: Dhimble Ali v. Fahria Mohamed (Minn. Ct. App. 2024)
- Justin Dean Schultz v. Analisa French Perkins (Minn. Ct. App. 2024)
- In re the Marriage of: Bridget Kathleen Corrigan, f/k/a Bridget Kathleen Schmidt v. Daniel Thomas Schmidt (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)
- Hope Amundsen v. Great Glory Auto, Inc., Kehnny Alabi (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr., Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Steven Ronald Houghton, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. (Minn. 2016)
- In re the Marriage of: Christopher Hutchenson Owen v. Angela Dawn Owen (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Ferdinand Leo Gams, Jr. v. Steven Ronald Houghton (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- State ex rel. Swanson v. 3M Co. (Minn. 2014)
- Marriage of Baker v. Baker (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
- Marriage of Merrick v. Merrick (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- In re the Marriage of: Elena Vladimirovna Tokarev v. Vladimir Efimovich Tokarev (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)
- In re the Marriage of: Deka Haji Diriye v. Adam Jelle Jilacow (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- In re the Custody of: J. J. O. Thomas Joshua Andrus v. Jennifer Jo Overson (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- In re the Marriage of: Rosalyn LaRae Johnson, f/k/a Rosalyn LaRae Foster v. Larry Dean Foster (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- In re the Marriage of: David Scott Pederson v. Elizabeth Joan Pederson (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Jessica Leah Weiss v. Alfred Aaron Griffin (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: S. M. T. and D. W. T., Parents. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- In re the Marriage of: Stephen Joseph Moore v. Lisa Jo Jacobson, f/k/a Lisa Jo Moore (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- In re the Marriage of: Jo Ellen M. Healy v. John Henry Healy, Jr. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- In re the Marriage of: Anita Joan Rakow v. Gary Arnold Rakow, Jr. (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Godfrey N. Stich obtained further review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court’s award of $200 per month as permanent spousal maintenance and $500 as attorney fees to Lois Stich.
We have stated on numerous occasions that the standard of review on appeal from a trial court’s determination of maintenance is whether that court abused the broad discretion accorded it. E.g., Erlandson v. Erlandson, 318 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Minn. 1982). Effective appellate review of the exercise of that discretion is possible only when the trial court has issued sufficiently detailed findings of fact to demonstrate its consideration of all factors relevant to an award of permanent spousal maintenance.
While the court of appeals acknowledged that the findings could have been more complete, it nevertheless concluded that those findings were not clearly erroneous and that the statutory requirements were considered. We disagree. The trial court did make findings with regard to the parties’ income, but made no findings as to their separate expenses. Moreover, it made no specific finding with regard to Godfrey’s financial ability to provide maintenance. As these findings are insufficient to enable an appellate court to determine whether the trial court properly considered the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 518.552 (1986), the matter is remanded to the trial court for additional findings in accordance with this decision. On remand, the trial court is authorized to conduct any necessary evidentiary hearing. Similarly, the trial court shall reconsider its award of attorney fees upon completion of the proceedings on remand.
Reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.