Cited by

Co., (stating that “[e]ven though the decision of the trial court in the first order may have been wrong, if it is an appealable order it is still final after the time for appeal has expired”); (applying this aspect of Dieseth in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

may have been wrong, if it is an appealable order it is still final after the time for appeal has expired”); (applying this aspect of Dieseth in a family-law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

She points to Dailey v. Chermak, which directs that “conclusions of law (which become the judgment in the case) prevail over an inconsistent statement in the findings of fact.”

See Dailey v. Chermak , (“There is caselaw authority that the mislabeling of a finding of fact as a conclusion of law, or vice versa, is not determinative of the true nature of the item.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

8 the child’s best interests.” Daily v. Chermak , (emphasis added) , rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

Co., (“Even though the decision of the trial court in the first order may have been wrong, if it is an appealable order it is still final after the time for appeal has expired.”); (applying this aspect of Dieseth in family law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

But when there is a conflict b etween a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that has become part of the judgment, “the judgment is binding and prevails over an inconsistent statement in an underlying finding of fact.” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

They do not challenge any of the “findings of fact” labeled as such in the district court’s order; they challenge purported factual findings contained in the “conclusions of law.” Although “the mislabeling of a finding of fact as a conclusion of law, or vice versa, is not determinative of the true nature of the item,” rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006), we observe that most of the challenged “findings” are not factual in nature or are premised on credibility determinations.

-32 (Minn. App. 2006), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

Co. , (applying this aspect of Dieseth in family law appeal), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

See, e.g., Schisel, d at 271 (reversing a requirement on where a child had to live when the requirement was imposed without best- interest findings); (holding “there is no absolute prohibition under Minnesota law against awarding child custody on the condition of maintaining a specific geographic residence for the child, as long as that residence is shown clearly and genuinely to serve the child’s best interests”), review denied (Minn. Ma

Co., (stating that “[e]ven though the decision of the trial court in the first order may have been wrong, if it is an appealable or der it is still final after the time for appeal has expired.”); 13 Dailey v. Chermak , (applying this aspect of Dieseth in family law appeal), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

Co. , (stating that “[e]ven though the decision of the trial court in the first order may have been wrong, if i t is an appealable order it is still final after the time for appeal has expired.”); Dailey v. Chermak , (citing this aspect of Dieseth in family law appeal), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

the judgment is considered final.” d 626, 631 (Minn. App. 2006) , review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006) .

State v. 2 While we note that a judgment is final even if in error, d 626, 631 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006) , and that we do not permit collateral attacks on judgments on nonjurisdictional grounds, review denied (Minn. Feb.

However, we are not bound by the characterization a judicial statement as a “finding of fact” or as a “conclusion of law.” Dailey v. Chermak , review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

Co., (stating that “[e]ven though the decision of the trial court in the first order may have been wrong, if it is an appealable order it is still final after the time for appeal has expired”); (citing this aspect of Dieseth in a family law appeal), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

-32 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

But we corrected the Imdieke declaration of supposed law in 2006 when we finally noticed that “Auge did not involve an issue of conditional custody, and there is no statement in the Auge opinion that custody conditioned on maintaining a particular residence for a child is contrary to Minnesota law.” (Mi nn.

Co., 275 Minn. 365, 370-71 , (stating that “[e]ven though the décision of the trial court in the first order may have been wrong, if it is an appealable order it is still final after the time for appeal has expired”); (Minn.App.

(citing Graphic Arts Educ.

(“Mislabeling of a finding of fact as a conclusion of law, or vice versa, is not determinative of the true nature of the item.”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).

review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006); Dixon v. Depositors Ins.

See Janssen v. Best & Flanagan, LLP, (stating that a judgment or appealable order becomes final if a timely appeal is not filed); review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006) (same).

ers,” and we agree with the recognition of the court of appeals in Dailey v. Chermak “that there is no absolute prohibition under Minnesota law against awarding child custody on the condition of maintaining a specific geographic residence for the child, as long as that residence is shown clearly and genuinely to serve the child’s best interests,” (Minn.App.

272, 273 (1895) (first observing that the child’s best interests rise above the interests of the parent, even where the parent’s interest is recognized by statute); , 176 (Minn.2002); review denied (Minn. May 16, 2006).