Cited by

1.” d 471, 477 (Minn. App. 2007).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an inadequately briefed issue); (applying Wintz in a family-law appeal).

See Brodsky v. Brodsky , ( noting we do not address inadequately briefed arguments); Horodenski v. Lyndale Green Townhome Ass’n, (“[E]rror is not presumed on appeal, and the burden of showing error rests on the party asserting it .”).

While these awards are within the district court’s discretion, “[t]he district court must make findings to explain an award of conduct-based attorney fees.”

(stating that district court’s failure to address issue “raised only in a conclusory fashion and without supporting .

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an issue absent adequate briefing); d 471, 479 (Minn. App. 2007) (applying Wintz in a family law appeal).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (applying Wintz in a family- law appeal).

See Brodsky v. Brodsky , -78 (Minn. App. 4 appropriate to award attorney fees under its inherent authority because the rules and statutes did not fully allow for an appropriate remedy for Robichaud’s “dilatory, non-cooperative, and unreasonable” conduct.

State, Dep’t of Labor & d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to reach issue not adequately briefed); (applying Wintz in a family law appeal); 6 Mother cites one unpublished case, Robbennolt v. Weigum , WL 1551686, at *2 (Minn. App. Apr.

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address an inadequately briefed question); (applying Wintz in a family law appeal).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declin ing to review questions that were not adequately briefed); (applying Wintz in a family-law appeal).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc ., (noting that reviewing court may decline to reach issu es that are not adequately briefed); (applying Wintz in a family-law appeal).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (declining to address an inadequately briefed question); see Brodsky v. 12 Brodsky, (applying Wintz in a family-law appeal).

See Brodsky v. Brodsky , 15 (providing that this court does not consider issues that are inadequately briefed).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., see Brodsky v. Brodsky , d 471, 479 (Minn. App. 2007) (applying Wintz in a family -law appeal); (stating the supreme court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal tha t are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”) Even if we consider the issue, however, our re

Therefore these questions a re not properly before us. See Brodsky v. Brodsky , (providing that appellate courts do not address issues that have not been adequately briefed).

See In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, n.2 (Minn. 2015) (declin ing to consider “inadequately briefed” argument); (recognizing that inadequately briefed arguments are forfeited).

(declining to address inadequately briefed arguments) (citing Dep’t of Labor & Indus.

2015) (declining to consider an “inadequately briefed” argument); (noting that a party who inadequately brie fs an argument waives that argument).

020), which states th at a district court has discretion to award “additional fees, costs, and disbursements against a party who unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding.” “The district court must make findings to explain an award of conduct-based attorney fees, whether in the dissolution proceedings or in a legitimate ancillary proceeding.”

We review an award of conduct -

d 471, 479 (Minn. App. 2007) (recognizing that inad equately briefed arguments are forfeited).

See Brodsky v. Brodsky , (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion that was procedurally defective).

Conduct-based attorney fees may be awarded “against a party who unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd.

(recognizing that inadequately briefed arguments are forfeited).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., d 480, 480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to address an inadequately briefed issue); (applying Wintz in a family-law appeal).

“A party who inadequately briefs an argument waives that argument.” Brodsky v. Brodsky

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declining to address an inadequately briefed issue); (applying Wintz in a family-law appeal).

Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., (noting that appellate courts decline to reach issues that are inadequately briefed); (applying Wintz in a family-law appeal).

Because husband did not ask the district court to apply Nardini, did not cite Nardini as a basis for relief in his brief to this court, and did not file a reply brief addressing wife’s reliance on Nardini, husband’s 12 (Minn. App. 2007) (noting that this court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal that were not raised in the district court and w ill not consider arguments not addressed in briefing); (“[T]his court does not conside

(“A party who inadequately briefs an argument waives that argument.”).

v. Winntz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , (declining to address an inadequately briefed issue); (applying Wintz in a family -law appeal).

(“A party who inadequately briefs an argument waives that argument.”).

24, 2001); (stating a party who inadequately briefs an issue waives it).

He asserts that the district court erred by relying on this court ’s decision in Brodsky v. Brodsky

(a party who inadequately briefs an argum ent waives it).