Baker v. Baker
Minnesota Supreme Court
753 N.W.2d 644 (2008)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
When Carol Baker (plaintiff) and Daniel Baker (defendant) married, Daniel’s employer had established and contributed to a qualified retirement plan as part of Daniel’s compensation. At the time of the marriage, the plan was worth about $957,000. During the marriage, Daniel chose to have professionals manage the account, chose and changed managers at times, authorized the managers to choose investments, used some of the money in the plan to invest in his son’s business, and decided not to withdraw money from the plan even though the plan was liquid. By the time Carol filed for divorce, the plan had yielded about $1.5 million. Carol and Daniel agreed that the $957,000 was nonmarital property, but the parties disagreed about the $1.5 million return. The court of appeals held that the $1.5 million was marital property. Daniel appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Meyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.