Cited by

(reversing and remanding because the lack of findings “inhibits this court’ s ability to review the [district] court’ s actions”); (“[W]here the record is reasonably clear and the facts not seriously disputed, the judgment of the trial court can be upheld in the absence of trial court findings .

(reversing and remanding because the lack of findings “inhibits this court’s ability to review the [district] court’s actions”); Palchizaca did not file a brief on appeal, and we ordered the case to be determined on the merits as provided in Minn. R. Civ.

But when “the record is reasonably clear and the facts [are] not seriously disputed, the judgment of the trial court can be upheld in the absence of trial court findings.”

Second, to the extent there is some lack of findings, a district court does not need to make findings of fact explaining its decision “where the record is reasonably clear.”

We can affirm a district court’s decision if the record provides sustainable evidence of findings underlying

In support of his position that this court must remand for more specific findings on his prospective claims, h usband cites Rogers v. Rogers , d 307 (Minn. App. 1984) , review denied (Minn. Jan.

Roberson v. Roberson , (holding that failure to move for amended findings “cannot bar a challenge on appeal that the record does not reveal with sufficient clarity the factual basis supporting the trial court’s decision.”).

However, where the record is not clear and the facts are in dispute, findings of fact by the trial court, made pursuant to [Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 52.01, should be made.” Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 12 476, 478

See 8 Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478, (“We have held that where the record is reasonably clear and the facts not seriously disputed, the judgment of the [district] court can be upheld in the absence of [district] court findings made pursuant to Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure.”).

“[W]here the record is reasonably clear and the facts not seriously disputed, the judgment of the trial court can be upheld in the absence of trial court findings made pursuant to Rule 52.01, Rules of Civil Procedure.” Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478, (citing Roberson); (stating that “[e]xactitude is not required of the trial court in the valuation of assets in a dissolution proceeding; it is only necessary tha

(remanding division of marital property for “more complete findings” because there was no “clear documentary or testimonial evidence” on the issues raised by the party challenging the property division and the district court did not make “comprehensive findings” but “simply set forth its conclusions”); Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 477-78, (remanding because “[t]he [district] court failed to make findings of fact from which it can be determined on what basis the court made its award” and

Airports Comm’n, ("[WJhere the record is reasonably clear and the facts not seriously disputed, the judgment of the trial court can be upheld in the absence of trial court findings made pursuant to Rule 52.01.”) (quoting Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , ).

Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478

In the absence of findings, this court may nevertheless affirm summary judgment if "the record is reasonably clear and the facts not seriously disputed.” (quoting Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , ).

.01 1985 advisory comm, note (explaining factual findings exist to permit meaningful appellate review) with Crowley Co. v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n, (recognizing that appellate courts may exercise their function in the absence of findings, provided that the record is reasonably clear and the facts are not seriously disputed and quoting Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , as authority).

We may nevertheless affirm judgment in the absence of findings if “the record is reasonably clear and the facts not seriously disputed.” (quoting Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , ).

(quoting Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , ).

In Crowley, *819 this court noted exceptions to the requirement of findings: “where the record is reasonably clear,” Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , where the order decides the disputed facts, Lafayette Club v. Roberts, 196 Minn. 605, 611 , 265 N.W.

Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478

Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 477

(citing Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , ).

Nonetheless, in Crowley Company, (citing Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , ), although reversing the trial court’s denial of injunctive relief because the denial was not supported by the record, we observed: where the record is reasonably clear and the facts not seriously disputed, the judgment of the trial court can be upheld in the absence of trial court fi

Furthermore, the expert's inclusion of reasonable compensation for the appellant’s services in net income calculations ran contrary to Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476 , where the court stated: “[Attaching a value to a business by capitalizing its income ordinarily requires exclusion of the value of personal services rendered by the owner.” Id.

Neither the first exception, delineated in Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , nor the second exception, set forth in Lafayette Club v. Roberts, 196 Minn. 605, 611 , 265 N.W.

Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478

On remand, we note that capitalization of respondent’s Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476

(citing Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 478 , ).

See Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476

William asserts the trial court failed to exclude the value of William’s and Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 477