Cited by

at 222 (quotation omitted); see also Wilson v. Moline , (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the [district] court’s findings”); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying this aspect of Wilson in a family-law appeal).

4 “A district court’s [calculation] of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

The statute requires the district court to consider these factors, but the court “is not required to make specific findings on every statutory factor if the findings that were made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.”

See Peterka 12 v. Peterka, (“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact[.]”); Mesenbourg, d at 492 (providing that when appellant does not provide a transcript, appellate review is limited to the district court’s legal conclusions).

Commitment of Kenney, (quotation omitted); (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings”); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying this aspect of Wilson in a family-law appeal).

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

17, 2018); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (same); (stating that “[t]he function of an appellate court is that of review.

at 222 (); see also Wilson, d at 870 (stating that the function of an appellate court “does not require [it] to discuss and review in detail the evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports 14 the trial court’s findings”); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying this aspect of Wilson in a family-law appeal).

5 to spousal maintenance); (district court did not abuse its discretion when it “resolved the issue in a logical manner consistent with the facts on the record.”).

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

See Madden, d at 696; 8 (Minn. App. 2004) (“The statutory framework for the setting and modification of maintenance awards implicitly acknowledges that a sub-marital-standard- of-living maintenance award may be initially equitable, but it also recognizes that circumstances can change to render such an award unreasonable and unfai

This court held in Peterka v. Peterka that “a maintenance obligor has a duty, to the extent equitable under the circumstances, to support the maintenance recipient at the marital standard of living.” -59 (Minn. App. 2004).

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

“Findings of fact concerning spousal maintenance must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous.” see Peterka v. 14 Peterka, (stating that an income determination is a finding of fact).

“A district 8 court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

Third, “[t]he purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances.”

And although both parties make record-based arguments about what the net income figures should be , “[a] district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact[ .]”

Peterka v. Peterka , (citing Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd.

The statute requires the district court to consider the se factors, but the court “is not required to make specific findings on every statutory factor if the findings that were made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.”

dence for the purpose of demonstrating that it supports the trial court’s findings,” and that an appellate court’s “duty is performed when [it] consider[s] all the evidence, as we have done here, and det ermine[s] that it reasonably supports the findings”); n.3 (Minn. App. 2018) (applying this aspect of Wilson in a family law appeal); Peterka v. Peterka , -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (same).

17, 2018); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (same).

2(c); see Peterka v. Peterka , -59 (Minn. App. 2004) .

rule of law applicable in any other proceeding.” Dobrin, d at 201; see also Honke v. Honke , 10 Preliminarily, we observe that other caselaw establishes that “the district court is not required to make specific findings on every statutory factor if the findings that were made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.” (); (holding “that the district court was required to consider only the relevant best-interest factors in [the parenting-time modificati

17, 2018); -58 (Minn. App. 2004) (same).

“The purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital stan dard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances.”

“The purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances.”

App. 2001) (citing Erlandson, d at 39-40); (noting that the purpose of spousal maintenance is “to allow the recipi ent and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances”).

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

Rather, the [maintenance recipient] can expect a sum that will keep with the circumstances and living standards of the parties at the time of the divorce.” Lee v. Lee , (quotations omitted); see Peterka v. Peterka , (stating that the purpose of a maintenance award “is to allow the recipient and the obli gor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances”).

.”); (stating “maintenance depends on a showing of need”); Peterka v. Peterka , (articulating purpose of spousal maintenance as allowing “the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that appro ximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equit able under the 11 circumstances,” and recognizing circumstances to include determination of recipi

See Peterka v. P eterka, (stating that t he purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the parties to have “a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances”).

“The purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a sta ndard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances.”

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unl ess clearly erroneous.” Peterka v. Peterka

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

2,] if the findings that were made reflect that the district court adequately considered the relevant statutory factors.”