Cited by

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (citing this aspect of Rule 61); (“Although error may exist, unless the error is prejudicial, no grounds exist for reversal.”).

P. 52.01; (applying Rule 52.01 in 8 family-law appeals).

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous [when] an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Goldman v. Greenwood , (quotation and citations omitted).

We review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error, “giving deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility.”

(recognizing courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

P. 61; (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.

“A district court is required under section 518.18(d) to conduct an evidentiary hearing only if the party seeking to modify a custody order makes a prima facie case for modification.”

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (applying rule 61 in a family-law appeal).

With respect to findings of fact, appellate courts will “set aside a district court ’s findings of fact only if clearly erroneous, giving deference to the district court’ s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility.”

(stating that a reviewing court defers to the district court’s credibility determinations).

P. 61 (requiring that harmless error be ignored); d 279, 285 (Minn. 2008) (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.

An appellate court reviews an order modifying custody by considering whether the district court “abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotation omitted).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (applying rule 61 in a family appeal); (noting appellate courts will not reverse a district court if it reached an affirmable result for wrong reasons).

We will “set aside a district court’s findings of fact only if clearly erroneous, giving deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility.”

d 279, 281-82 (Minn. 2008).

d 279, 282 (Minn. 2008) (stating that district courts “have broad discretion in determining custody matters” (quotation omitted)).

(explaining that an evidentiary hearing is required “only if the party seeking to modify a custody order makes a prima facie case for modification”).

(explaining that an evidentiary hearing is required “only if the party seeking to modify a custody order makes a prima facie case for modification”).

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous where an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation and citations omitted).

And, because we defer to the district court’s credibility determinations, d 279, 284 (Minn. 2008) , and mother admits that there was no corroborating evidence, we conclude that the district court did not err in its findings about mother’s credibility and the lack of corroborating evidence.

“Determination of the applicable statutory standard and the interpretation of statutes are questions of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” (citations omitted).

6 District courts have “broad discretion in determining custody and parenting time matters.” ().

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous [when] an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

P. 61 (requiring that harmless error be ignored); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.

Reichert appeals.2 DECISION A district court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to modify custody if the movant “ makes a prima facie case for modification.”

“The concept of endangerment is unusually imprecise, but a party must demonstrate a significant degree of danger to satisfy the endangerment element of section 518.18(d)(iv).” d 279, 285 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

See id.; (explaining that 9 “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

(stating that courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

P. 61 (noting that if a district court erroneously admits or excludes evidence, the party may receive a new hearing unless the error was harmless); (applying this rule to an appeal from a custody-modification order).

Appellate courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive.”

P. 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); , 285 (Minn. 2008) (declining to reverse denial of custody-modification motion because district court correctly concluded there was no prima facie case and was thus harmless error) (citing Minn. R. Civ.

(concluding that the district court’s error did not require reversal where the district court reached the “correct” result) (citing Minn. R. Civ.