Cited by

(making this statement regarding the predecessor statute to section 518A.32).

(analyzing the predecessor statute to Minn. Stat. § 518A.32 (2022)).

(other citation omitted).

(making this statement regarding the predecessor statute to section 518A.32).

(Minn. 1994); (outlining the requirements that must be met to divest a district court of jurisdiction).

( listing the four requirements); see also, -08 (Minn. App. 1989) (concluding that the district court had authority to modify because the parties’ Karon waiver lacked express divestiture language), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(stating that when party is “in exclusive possession” of evidence and fails to produce it, “an unfavorable inference may be drawn about that party as to the relevant issue”).

“[W]e will reverse a [CSM]’s order regarding child support only if we are convinced that the [CSM] abused [her] broad discretion by reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”

ly its permanent child support order retroactively because the appellant failed to raise the issue at any time during his dissolution proceedings, but also acknowledged that the appellant “could have moved to amend or vacate the temporary order anytime before the court entered its final decree, and if he had done so, the modification statute would have allowed for retroactive application.”

Melius v. Melius , (maintenance); Butt v. Schmidt , (support).

Respondent cites Butt v. Schmidt for the idea that “at some point the burden of proof/production shifts.”

(stating that a reviewing court considers only issues presented to and considered by the district court); Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , (stating that “a party cannot complain about a district court’s failure to rule in [ his] favor when one of the reasons it

Regarding an older version of the statute, our supreme court has said that if the trier of fact “lacks sufficient information , [the statute] directs the court to calculate income for purp oses of child support based on [the] minimum wage.”

(child support); Melius v. Melius , (spousal maintenance).

An appellate court will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if it abused its broad discretion with a determination “that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted).

n.3 (Minn. 2008) (citing Kmetz, d at 100-01).

An appellate court will reverse a district court’s order regar ding child support only if the district court abused its broad discretion by reaching a conclusion “that is against logic and the facts on record.” Butt v. Schmidt , (quotation omitted).

An appellate court will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if the district court abused its broad discre tion by reaching the question in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.” Butt v. Schmidt , (quotation omitted).

See, ( noting, in a 9 child-support dispute, that “we have stated that if a party is in exclusive possession of evidence and that party fails to produce the evidence, an unfavorable inference may be drawn about that party as to the relevant issue”); Bollenbach v. Bollenbach, 285 Minn. 418, 428, 175

(quotation and citations omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd.

d 566, 578 (Minn. 2008) ().

“We will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if we are convinced that the district court abused its broad discretion by reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted).

(remanding case to district court to follow proper procedure for imputing income).

(quotation and citations omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 518.522, subd.

(stating party may move for modification of temporary support order).

-45 (Minn.1994); superseded in part by statute, 1989 Minn. Laws ch. 248, § 7, at 838 (codified at Minn.Stat.