STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FAMILY COURT DIVISION
In Re the Marriage of: Court File No.: 19AV-FA-11-1273
Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki, AMENDED
FIN F FACT,
Petitioner, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND
and ORDER FOR PROPERTY DIVISION
David Victor Rucki,
Respondent.
‘The above captioned matter came duly on for trial before the Honorable David L.
Knutson, Judge of District Court, on the 28" day of August, 2012, at the Dakota County Judicial
Center, in Hastings, Minnesota. Upon receipt of a letter dated October 31, 2012 from Ms.
Elliott, regarding proper paragraph references, this court now enters this Amended Judgment
and Decree.
Petitioner appeared in person, and was represented by counsel, Elizabeth Henry, Esq.,
Chestnut Cambronne, P.A., 17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55401. Respondent appeared in person, and was represented by counsel, Lisa M. Elliott, Esq.,
Elliott Law Offices, P.A., 2409 West 66" Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423.
‘The provisions of a Stipulated Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment
and Judgment and decree dated May 12, 2011 were vacated on September 21, 2011 except for
aD DATA COUNTY
(CARO A RL, Gout Aina
1 NOV 07 2012paragraph 1 of the Conclusions of Law which dissolved the bonds of matrimony between the
parties and granted a dissolution of the parties’ marriage.
‘The matter came on for trial on August 28, 2012. Prior to trial, the parties were able to
reach some agreements on property division set forth below and such agreements were
entered on the record.
NOW THEREFORE, based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, as well as,
the parties’ oral agreement on the record, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1, The true and correct present names, former names and addresses of the parties
are as follows:
Sandra Sue Grazzini-Rucki
ffk/a Sandra Sue Grazzini
19675 Ireland Place
Lakeville, Minnesota 55044
Respondent: David Victor Rucki
17549 Flagstaff
Farmington, Minnesota 55024
2. The attorneys for Petitioner are CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA, by Elizabeth Henry,
Esq. The attorneys for Respondent are ELLIOTT LAW OFFICES, P.A., by Lisa M. Elliott, Esq.
3. The parties were married on August 31, 1991, in the City of Edina, Minnesota, The
parties’ marriage was dissolved pursuant to this Court’s Judgment and Decree dated May 12,
2011.
4. For more than one hundred eighty (180) days immediately preceding the
commencement of this proceeding, both parties had resided within the State of Minnesota,5. Neither party was at the time of the service of the Summons and Petition, nor is
‘now, in the military services of the United States and neither is entitled to relief under the Service
Members Civil Relief Act of 2003, as amended.
6. The Petitioner is 47 years of age, with a birth date of September 30, 1965, and the
Respondent is 49 years of age, with a birth date of February 3, 1963.
7. AS issue of this relationship, the parties have five minor children, namely: Nico
James Rucki, born June 22, 1996, age 16; Samantha Victoria Rucki, born June 24, 1998, age 14;
Gianna Jade Rucki, born November 2, 1999, age 12; Nia Gabrielle Rucki, born September 25, 2001,
‘age 11; and Gino Paolo Rucki, born January 20, 2003, age 9.
8 The Court incorporates and adopts by reference the Findings regarding the
temporary care, custody and control of the minor children as set out in its Orders of September 7,
2012 and October 3, 2012. The Issues of permanent Custody/Parenting Time and Child Support
are reserved until further Order of this Court.
9, Petitioner is not now pregnant.
10. Petitioner has medical insurance and dental insurance through her employer for
the benefit of herself and the minor children.
11. Neither party is currently receiving public assistance.
12. Petitioner is employed by U.S. Airways and has the ability to earn a gross annual
salary of $60,000. Petitioner is self-supporting, is not in need of spousal maintenance.
Respondent is currently employed by Kang Contracting and has the ability to earn a gross
annual salary of $60,000. Respondent is self-supporting, is not in need of spousal
maintenance,
13, There is not an Order for Protection in effect against either party.
14. The parties are the owners of a 2007 Chevrolet Suburban, presently
unencumbered, and in the possession of Petitioner; a 1994 Mercedes SL 500; 1970 Chevrolet
Chevelle; a 1967 Cadillac DeVille, and a 1997 Chevrolet Silverado, presently unencumbered, in the
possession of Respondent. Respondent is a co-owner of the 1967 Cadillac DeVille with another
individual.
15. The parties are the owners of a 2008 Premier Pontoon Boat and trailer and a 2004
Centurion boat and trailer, both of which are subject to encumbrances. Neither party claims to
know the location of either of the boats and police reports have been filed that they have been