Helping You Build a Strong Future
Our firm takes a proactive stance in helping you plan for marriage. Rather than leaving questions of finances and assets to chance or pretending that these issues do not exist, we manage them on your behalf through a variety of methods, including antenuptial agreements.
Prenuptial Agreements that Make Sense
Prenuptial agreements, also known as antenuptial agreements, are a staple in many modern marriages. We can help you put in place a variety of agreements beforehand that anticipate potential disputes in a marriage, even sometimes preventing them from arising in the first place. By minimizing the potential for misunderstandings and disputes, we maximize the likelihood of your marriage’s success. Clients particularly appreciate our ability to handle these matters with discretion. We understand human nature and how to address difficult family topics with tact and sensitivity.
Contesting and Upholding Prenuptial Agreements
At Kathleen M. Newman Family Law, we work aggressively to contest prenuptial agreements that our clients feel should no longer apply and, on behalf of our clients, to defend prenuptial agreements that should be upheld. We do so in our hallmark style of personalized legal services designed to understand you and best meet your needs.
Learn more about the services at Kathleen M. Newman Family Law, through our extensive media resources >
As same sex couples tie the knot in the growing number of states where same-sex marriage is legally recognized, the idea of getting a prenuptial agreement isn’t top of mind. Many of these couples are still enjoying the euphoria of the recent court ruling allowing same sex marriage. Additionally, we have a limited view (if at all) of what a same-sex couple’s divorce would look like.
Still, understanding a prenuptial agreement and whether it is a fit for your situation is worth it. You can plan now to protect each other should the marriage not work out.
- figure out if a prenuptial agreement is even needed
- have an open mind
- consider how much money a prenuptial agreement could save you
- make it fair
- consider what a divorce without a prenuptial agreement looks like
- let your heart make all the decisions
- assume a prenuptial agreement is set in stone
- skip the finances talk – have it before you get engaged
- rush into a prenuptial agreement
- assume you’ll get spousal support
Do figure out if a prenuptial agreement is even needed
If you are young, with minimal assets and this is your first marriage, you may not need a prenuptial agreement. On the other hand, your fiancé may require a prenuptial agreement if he or she has considerable assets. If this is your second marriage and you have children (including adult children) from your first marriage, a prenuptial agreement may be worth consideration for your own peace of mind and estate planning.
Do have an open mind
Certainly there is a stereotype that prenuptial agreements are callous and only favor one person, the one who wants it. We see prenuptial agreements all the time on television and in the movies. It’s that classic scene where the woman about to marry her (wealthy) prince is handed a document minutes before the wedding that she needs to sign so they can live happily ever after.
Are there situations where the prenuptial agreement is unexpected or last minute? Certainly there are. But, in many cases, a prenuptial agreement is carefully crafted and both parties are aware of and agree on the contents. Some couples are coming off of a divorce or witnessed a messy divorce between their parents. They are realists, and planning to protect each other, not destroy each other in the case of divorce.
The profile of today’s bride and groom has changed from the days when two penniless love-birds began their lives together after marriage. Now many couples, especially same-sex couples marry later in life, after becoming successful in their own careers. They may have acquired homes, significant financial assets, and hefty retirements. Given these practical reasons, romance can still flourish if a prenup is approached in a sensible, yet sensitive manner.
Do consider how much money a prenuptial agreement could save you
A simple prenuptial agreement can cost a couple thousand dollars. Compare that to the hundreds of thousands you could spend battling out a nasty divorce.
Do make it fair
In many states, law requires the prenuptial agreement be fair at the time it is created. However, don’t let that keep you from getting legal counsel to work through all of the details before you sign the document. Think ahead and plan for various scenarios including:
- Children: Will one of you quit your job to take care of them?
- Sickness: You can have a provision allowing for spousal support should one of you get sick, or if an existing condition worsens.
Do consider what a divorce without a prenuptial agreement looks like
Same sex couples who enter into a marriage with significant assets should know what a divorce without a prenuptial could look like. Imagine months of back and forth about every single asset in the marriage. Do you really want to go step-by-step and split it all up?
If the couple is on bad terms, this process could take years. It is time consuming and even emotionally and physically draining for the parties involved. Having a prenuptial agreement would eliminate much of the confusion, fighting and back-and-forth that can occur at the time of a divorce.
Do not let your heart make all the decisions
For some couples, particularly those who have been together for many years, if not decades, and jump at the chance to marry as soon as their state allows it, the very thought of a post-divorce existence can seem rather unloving. But, even with the talk of alimony and tax consequences, the prenuptial process, when done correctly, can draw a couple closer. The bottom line is to make sure you use your head when getting married and consider a prenuptial agreement a smart move as well as a method of protecting each other in the event you decide to end the marriage.
Do not assume a prenuptial agreement is set in stone
As mentioned, in many states, a prenuptial agreement must not only be fair at the time it is created, but it must also be deemed fair at the time of the divorce. At that time, circumstances may have changed including employment, health and children.
Some of our cases have involved couples who had children not anticipated at the time the parties signed the prenuptial agreement, people who have experienced debilitating illness during the marriage, and others who have experienced lifestyle changes not anticipated at the time of marriage, like becoming stay-at-home parents.
Prenuptial agreements can be contested and changed, especially when there are significant changes since the creation and signing of the agreement.
Do not skip the finances talk – have it before you get engaged
Deciding whether a prenuptial agreement is right for you is your decision. Every situation is unique. If you’re trying to decide if a prenuptial agreement is a good idea, maybe it is best to first have a talk about money. For the best outcome, try to get a general sense of your partner’s approach to finances before becoming engaged. Talk openly and honestly about financial situations that you may have to deal with as a couple and express your expectations and anxieties about money.
Do not rush into a prenuptial agreement
Sure, it can feel unromantic to discuss the possibility of a divorce, but on the other hand, it is romantic to know that the person you are committing to for the rest of your life is open to discussing any issue, even if it is as personal and emotionally complicated as a prenuptial agreement.
Just be very careful to have this conversation early and well in advance of the wedding. Rushing to sign a prenuptial agreement before the wedding is not a smart decision and can cause unwarranted anxiety. It may also cause the agreement not to be enforceable.
Do not assume you’ll get spousal support
Spousal support is financial assistance that recognizes a partner’s contribution to the marriage and helps the recipient achieve financial independence. Alimony is available only to those who were legally married; and, rules vary by state. The court will award financial assistance based on factors such as the duration of the marriage, each person’s earning capacity, contribution to household or career, and physical health of the recipient. Spousal support is never guaranteed and in many cases, is difficult to obtain.
There may also be specific guidelines in the prenuptial agreement about spousal support. Be sure to understand and agree to those terms.
Certainly no one wants to think about divorce when they are newly engaged. But, we all know it is a possibility. Do your homework and figure out whether a prenuptial agreement is fitting for your situation. For many same-sex couples, a prenuptial agreement can be a beneficial way to protect each other’s assets and limit the potential bickering and back-and-forth if a divorce becomes a reality.
Many couples currently in a relationship may be thinking about getting married. They may have started talking about the future, to see if they share the same feelings about what their lives together will be like. Once they decide to move forward, they may give little thought to what will happen if the marriage does not go as planned.
No one is able to predict if a couple will be able to handle all the problems that they will encounter during their marriage. Things can happen that can cause even the strongest relationships to eventually collapse due to the strain the spouses may be feeling. If the spouses did not create a prenuptial agreement, there could be significant issues concerning the division of the couple’s assets.
In Minnesota prenuptial agreements (sometimes called antenuptial agreements) allow an individual to protect his or her assets should the marriage not work out. The documents can clearly state how the property will be divided if the couple decides to go ahead with a divorce.
For prenuptial agreements to be valid, the agreement needs to be fair at the time the agreement was entered into, as well as at the time of the divorce. If the couple’s situation changes, such as the loss of a job, declining health, a change in the value of certain assets or new additions to the family, it could also impact the validity of the prenuptial agreement. They may need to consider modifying the agreement to reflect this change in circumstances.
Now that same-sex marriage is legal in Minnesota, gay, lesbian and transgender couples may also wish to enter into a prenuptial agreement prior to their marriages. These couples should consider the advantages that the agreements provide, and have a discussion with their spouse-to-be about their specific situations.
The end of a relationship can be a very traumatic time for everyone. You want to be certain that if your marriage ends, you are able to eliminate some of the obstacles that can prevent your divorce from being finalized. Prenuptial agreements can make the entire process move much more smoothly at such a difficult time.
Because of the strict requirements in place for these agreements, you want to make sure that you have completed the necessary steps to ensure that your document will be enforceable. No one wants to find out that their pre-nup will be struck down at the time of a divorce.
If you have questions about a prenuptial agreement in Minnesota, you should speak to an experienced family law attorney. Your attorney can help you create an agreement that protects the items most important to you. Should situations change, you can work with your attorney to make sure that your document is updated accordingly.
An Overview of Minnesota Statutory and Case Law Requirements for a Valid Agreement
 Prenuptial agreements are commonly seen as the antithesis of romance. What could be less romantic than planning for an ending that could be less than happily-ever-after? However, a divorce rate at nearly 50 percent for first marriages and 60 percent for second marriages may contribute to the decision to enter into an antenuptial agreement. It is also important for prospective spouses to realize that an antenuptial agreement can be just one step toward responsible financial planning rather than a vote of “no confidence” in the relationship’s future. An antenuptial agreement may be an important and practical part of estate or tax planning, especially for those with children from a previous relationship or significant accumulated assets. It may also simply be a way for a marrying couple to determine, based upon their own understanding of their relationship, what should happen with their assets and liabilities in the event things do not work out.
In Minnesota, absent an antenuptial agreement, property accumulated during a marriage is considered “marital property” and divided “equitably.”  While, in most instances, courts interpret an “equitable” (or fair) division of property as an equal division, an antenuptial agreement can define what marrying couples want a court to determine is equitable in the event of a divorce. Although the antenuptial statute only expressly applies to non-marital property,  the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that agreements regarding marital property can be valid.  However, certain financial aspects of a divorce, such as child support or conduct-based attorneys’ fees, are difficult to define in antenuptial agreements and a modification of the statutory framework governing them may be considered against public policy. 
Historical and Public Policy Background
Courts traditionally allowed antenuptial contracts to regulate economic rights at death, but not at the time of divorce. Antenuptial agreements in the divorce context were seen as harmful to the institution of marriage and the tradition of husbands supporting wives and wives serving husbands. Subsequent to the “divorce revolution” of the 1960’s, antenuptial agreements came to be viewed as useful tools to make divorce more efficient and cost effective. As spouses have come to be viewed as equal partners almost all states have given them the ability to contract for certain rights at the time of divorce.
The Minnesota Supreme Court first recognized the validity of an agreement in the divorce context in 1970.  The Minnesota legislature then adopted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act – along with its recognition of antenuptial agreements – in 1974.  The legislature enacted specific, statutory provisions regulating to antenuptial agreements in 1979. Later, in 1983, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws promulgated the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (U.P.A.A.). Over half of the states have since adopted this model legislation in some form, but Minnesota has not. Although Minnesota generally follows the U.P.A.A.’s tendency to uphold agreements as executed, the Supreme Court has developed a method of reviewing antenuptial agreements with greater scrutiny than would be done under the U.P.A.A.
Statutory Law and Procedural Fairness
Clear statutory requirements dictate that an antenuptial agreement must be procedurally fair. Minn. Stat. § 519.11 governs antenuptial agreements, and sets forth six procedural criteria for executing a valid and enforceable antenuptial agreement:
•(a) There must be full and fair disclosure of both parties’ income and property;
•(b) Both parties must have had the opportunity to consult with an attorney of their own choice;
•(c) The agreement must be in writing;
•(d) The agreement must be executed before two witnesses;
•(e) Both parties must acknowledge the agreement before a notary public; and
•(f) The agreement must be executed prior to the day when the marriage is solemnized.
In order to ensure that an antenuptial agreement will be upheld, the parties must fulfill each of these requirements. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has emphasized the importance of the procedural fairness criteria in Siewert v. Siewert.  In Siewert, the district court had enforced an antenuptial agreement even though the agreement had been signed before only one witness.  The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an antenuptial agreement can be valid only when the statutory criteria are strictly satisfied and the agreement is signed before two witnesses. 
In order to satisfy Minnesota procedural requirements, a complete written financial disclosure is particularly important. To satisfy the requirement, many people attach an Exhibit to the agreement that lists all of the parties’ assets and debts, as well as their current incomes. This information should be as accurate and detailed as possible and include specific information to describe each asset, including account numbers, balances, and dates of valuation. With respect to income and certain asset and tax issues, it is helpful to include copies of relevant tax returns. Large assets can be appraised if their value is not known.
For an antenuptial agreement to be procedurally fair, each party must also have “unrestrained access to advice from independent counsel.”  To avoid any appearance of bias, each party should retain and pay for their own attorney, and the attorney should not be recommended by anyone with a relationship to the other party. This requirement can be waived,  but doing so should be done with caution. The Supreme Court has noted that “we have never held, nor are we prepared to do so now, that an attorney should never represent both parties seeking an antenuptial agreement.” McKee-Johnson, supra at 266. However, the attorney who drafts the agreement must inform the other spouse of the rights he/she is giving up by signing the agreement or at least inquire whether he/she would like the opportunity to meet with separate legal counsel prior to signing the agreement. In re Estate of Kinney, 733 NW 2d 118 (Minn. 2007).
In Minnesota, even if the antenuptial agreement satisfies these statutory procedural requirements, the court might still invalidate the agreement if enforcing the terms of the agreement is not substantively fair, as discussed below.
Common Law and Substantive Fairness
Unlike the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, Minnesota courts require that antenuptial agreements also conform to common-law requirements to be enforceable. Not only must antenuptial agreements be procedurally fair, as required by statute, and conscionable at the time of execution, as required by the U.P.A.A., Minnesota law requires that antenuptial agreements also be substantively fair at the time the agreement is to be enforced. This difference in state antenuptial law may require the courts to deal with the issue of choice-of-law when an antenuptial agreement has been executed in a state other than the state in which the divorce is taking place. Minnesota appellate courts have not yet made a choice-of-law decision in the context of an antenuptial agreement in a published decision, but did address choice-of-law in Jundt v. Jundt, Nos. A05-693, A05-955, 2006 WL 917592 (Minn. App. April 11, 2006). In Jundt, the parties executed an antenuptial agreement in California and lived in California for approximately nine months following the marriage, the couple then moved to Minnesota where they resided for just over ten and a half years until the dissolution process was commenced. Id. at *1. Wife challenged the validity of the antenuptial agreement and the district court addressed the choice-of-law issue, upholding the choice-of-law provision in the antenuptial agreement and concluding the validity would be determined under California law. The Court of Appeals cited cases involving choice-of-law provisions in contracts other than antenuptial agreements and held that the application of another state’s law is constitutionally permissible when that state has a “significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.” Id. at *2, citing Allstate Ins. V. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 312-313, 101 S. Ct. 633, 640 (1981). The Court found that the parties had sufficient contact with California to allow application of California law due to the fact that the parties lived in California when they entered into the antenuptial agreement and for a portion of the time they were married. Id.
In considering substantive fairness, the court must also consider whether events have occurred during the marriage that would make enforcement of the terms of the agreement unfair at the time of the parties’ divorce. In 1989, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its opinion in McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, which still stands today as the preeminent authority on antenuptial agreements in Minnesota,  although it has been superseded, in part, regarding the requirement of dependant counsel. See Estate of Kinney. In McKee, the Supreme Court established the principle that in order to be enforceable – and in addition to satisfying the criteria of procedural fairness – an antenuptial agreement must be substantively fair both at the time of the creation of the agreement and at the time of enforcement.  Specifically, the court held that an antenuptial agreement is not valid “if the premises upon which they were originally based have so drastically changed that enforcement would not comport with the reasonable expectation of the parties at the inception” and if enforcement of the agreement would therefore be “oppressive and unconscionable.” 
In McKee-Johnson, the court took the view that antenuptial agreements require greater scrutiny than other contracts because of the unique nature of the relationship and rights involved between two people contemplating marriage.
Even though the public policy of the state, as reflected by the common law, has long favored antenuptial agreements, nonetheless, this court has always scrutinized challenged premarital agreements purporting to allot property or limit maintenance for procedural and substantive fairness at the inception. This scrutiny has been prompted by a recognition of the existence of potentiality for overreaching by one party over the other due to the relationship existing between them at the time of the execution. We ascertain no reason why courts should not extend a similar scrutiny to challenged provisions of antenuptial agreements[.] 
This emphasis on heightened scrutiny recognizes that because the purpose of the antenuptial agreement is to change state laws regarding property and other important rights, such agreements are of paramount interest and importance to the state. 
After McKee-Johnson, courts considering a challenge to an antenuptial agreement must first determine whether any event has occurred during the marriage that would constitute a change in circumstances as contemplated by McKee-Johnson .  For example, the birth of children may constitute a change in circumstances that prompts further substantive fairness analysis.  This first inquiry does not require that the change be unforeseeable. In fact, in the unpublished case of Mazzitelli v. Mazzitelli, discussed more fully below, the antenuptial agreement expressly contemplated that the wife would stay home with children and provided her with nominal financial compensation during that period.  However, the Court of Appeals held that when the wife stayed home significantly longer than anticipated, there was a change of circumstances that triggered further inquiry. 
The presence of changed circumstances triggers a second inquiry, requiring the court to determine whether the premises upon which the antenuptial agreement was originally based “have so drastically changed that enforcement would not comport with the reasonable expectations of the parties at the inception to such an extent that to validate them at the time of enforcement would be unconscionable.”  The Court of Appeals applied this test in In re Estate of Aspenson,  In Aspenson, the Court emphasized that the potential for overreaching by one party is exacerbated if there are significant inequalities between the parties.  The Court noted that the parties were close in age and had a similar amount of assets when they married.  During eight years of marriage, that equality continued.  As such, there was no drastic change that rendered the antenuptial agreement substantively unfair.  Similarly, the court upheld an antenuptial agreement where the parties had been [in equal standing at the time of execution], were both well-educated and capable of self-support, were relatively young and in good health and had contributed equally during the marriage. 
The Court of Appeals most recently affirmed a substantive unfairness finding inMazzitelli v. Mazzitelli, an unpublished opinion, finding that a change in circumstances during the marriage made enforcement of the agreement substantively unfair.  InMazzitelli, husband was 41 years old at the time the parties were married and had more than $600,000 in assets. In contrast, wife was 27 years old and had debts of $355. The parties entered into an antenuptial agreement in which they agreed that in the event of a divorce, each would be entitled to those assets that they acquired individually during the marriage.  The parties also specifically agreed that if wife stayed home from work, husband would compensate her each month. 
After 16 years of marriage, the wife in Mazzitelli sought a divorce and challenged the property division portions of the antenuptial agreement as substantively unfair. Specifically, because she had stayed out of the workforce to care for the parties’ children for nearly 10 years, enforcement of the agreement would have resulted in husband being awarded $1 million in retirement assets, his law practice, a homestead, and a cabin.  In contrast, wife would have been awarded only $31,000 in retirement assets.  On these facts, the Court of Appeals held that even though the parties had anticipated having children, “[t]he reasonable expectations of the parties did not include [wife] remaining out of the work force for almost ten years, unable to accumulate substantial assets, while [husband] was earning a regular income and building a financial estate.”  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s determination that the property provisions of the antenuptial agreement were substantively unfair at the time of enforcement and therefore invalid. 
The Court of Appeals has found an agreement to be substantively unfair in one other unpublished case, In re Marriage of Kubes v. Kubes. 1995 WL 238805 (Minn. App. 1995). In Kubes, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination that an antenuptial agreement was unfair after change in employment and a change in retirement planning, resulting in husband receiving an additional $89,540 in retirement assets. However, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding that the record on appeal did not support the trial court’s determination that enforcement of the agreement at the time of dissolution would be “unconscionable and unfair.” Kubes v. Kubes, 534 N.W.2d 706 (Minn. 1995).
In contrast, the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of a challenged antenuptial agreement despite arguments of substantive unfairness in the unpublished decision ofGrossman v. Grossman, No. A05-2045, 2006 WL 1806409 (Minn. Ct. App. July 3, 2006). Wife argued that the antenuptial agreement was invalid due to a change of circumstances from the parties’ reasonable expectations at the time of execution of the agreement and that made enforcement of the agreement was unconscionable. In addition, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by instead focusing on the “foreseeability” of the change in circumstances. Id. at *2.
Wife argued that because she stayed at home following the birth of two children in one year there was a change in circumstances that made the agreement unenforceable. Id. The court disagreed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, given the mention of children in the antenuptial agreement and the parties’ discussions regarding having children before executing the agreement. Id. While Wife stayed at home after the birth of the couple’s second child, Wife “was in good health and fully capable of returning to work.” Id. The parties had employed a full-time nanny and the antenuptial agreement mentioned the possibility of one or both of the parties being unemployed at some point in the future.Id. The Court of Appeals agreed that Wife staying home was foreseeable and completely within her control.
Wife argued, in the alternative, that the increase in the parties’ standard of living constituted a change of circumstances that made the agreement unenforceable. Id. The parties lived a “comfortable” lifestyle both before and after the marriage and given the nature of Husband’s assets (real estate and investments), his net worth fluctuated quite dramatically during the marriage “with the rise and fall of real estate and financial markets” (between $8,830,000 and $26,000,000). Id. at *3. The Court of Appeals concluded that this fluctuation was also foreseeable.
Wife lastly argued that the waiver of spousal maintenance and attorneys’ fees was substantively unfair at the time of enforcement. The Court of Appeals disagreed, given the short-term of the marriage (6 years), Wife’s good health, experience as an attorney, and a significant increase in her net worth during the marriage ($30,000 to $1,000,000).Id.
If, during a divorce, one of the spouses challenges the antenuptial agreement, that spouse will have the burden of proving that the agreement was procedurally defective or substantively unfair at the time of execution or has become substantively unfair. 
Anyone contemplating an antenuptial agreement should keep all of these requirements in mind. If the agreement is contested, the court will examine procedural and substantive fairness, and, although there is no way to guarantee that an agreement will be upheld, careful consideration of these criteria and standards will assist parties as they draft an agreement. Knowledge of the criteria will not only help with drafting an effective agreement, but will also help parties and attorneys to understand how various changes in circumstances might affect the enforceability of the agreement. 
 Commonly referred to as “prenuptial” agreements, Minnesota Statutes use the terms “antenuptial” and “postnuptial” agreement.
 See Minn. Stat. §518.58.
 Nonmarital property is generally defined as property that is 1) received as a gift from a third party, 2) acquired before the marriage, or 3) appreciation on other nonmarital property or acquired in exchanged for nonmarital property. See Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 5.
 See McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259, 268 (Minn. 1989) superseded on other grounds by In re Estate of Kinney 733 N.W.2d 118 (Minn. 2007).
 See, e.g., Aumock v. Aumock, 410 N.W.2d 420, 421-22 (holding that the district court erred in approving a permanent waiver of child support).
 Englund v. Englund, 175 N.W.2d 461 (Minn. 1970).
 Adopted through Minn. Stat. §§518.002-.66 (1990).
 691 N.W.2d 504 (Minn. App. 2005).
 See id.
 Id. at 507.
 See Pollock-Halvarson v. McGuire, 576 N.W.2d 451 (Minn. App. 1998).
 McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259, 266 (Minn. 1989) superseded on other grounds see page 10.
 See Pollock-Halvarson v. McGuire, 576 N.W.2d 451 (Minn. App. 1998).
 444 N.W.2d 259 (Minn. 1989).
 See id. at 267.
 McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259, 267.(Minn. 1989).
 See id.
 See id.
 See id.
 Mazzitelli v. Mazzitelli, 2005 WL 221683 (Minn. App. Feb. 1, 2005).
 See id.
 McKee-Johnson v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 259, 266 (Minn. 1989).
 470 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. App. 1991).
 Id. at 696.
 See id.
 See id.
 See id.
 See Petty v. Reese, No. C8-98-1576, 1999 WL 261952 (Minn. App. May 7, 1999).
 No. A-04-420, 2005 WL 221683, (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2005).
 See id. at *2.
 See id.
 See id. at *3.
 See id. at *2.
 See id. at *3.
 See id.
 See id.
 See Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subd. 5.