Cited by

P. 52.01; (applying rule 52.01 in a family-law appeal).

In reviewing the district court’s relocation decision, this court considers “whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotations omitted).

P. 61 (requiring courts to disregard harmless error); (applying rule 61 in a child -custody appeal).

P. 61 (directing courts to “disregard any error” that does not affect a party’s substantial rights); (citing this aspect of Minn. R. Civ.

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

The circumstances constituting endangerment are “unusually imprecise,” but must amount to a “significant degree of danger.”

“Appellate review of custody modification and removal cases is limited to considering whether the trial court abused its discretion.” (quotation omitted).

Because the district court has broad discretion in making custody determinations, our review “is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” - 82 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

See id.; (stating that “the conjunction ‘or’ [i]s disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

P. 52.01; (applying rule 52.01 in a family-law appeal).

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

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

Our review of custody determinations is limited to “whether the district court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” - 82 (Minn. 2008).

Modtland, d at 607; (stating that Minnesota courts interpret “or” as disjunctive rather than conjunctive).

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

-82 (Minn. 2008); 3 (Minn. App. 2021) ( noting that “[d]ecisions regarding school choice are educational decisions within the ambit of legal custody”), rev. denied (Minn. May 18, 2021).

Minn. Stat. §§ 518.175, .18 (2020)

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); see Goldman v. Greenwood , (citing this as pect of Minn. R. Civ.

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

See Goldman v. Greenwood , (recognizing that appellate courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

When an issue turns on the district court’s findings of fact, we review the findings for clear error, “giving deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility” and reversing only if we are left “with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

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

We give deference to the “district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility.”

“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 omitted).

See Goldman v. Greenwood , (recognizing that appellate courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

(stating that “we normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rath er than conjunctive”).

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); (applying rule 61 in a family appeal); Hesse v. Hesse , (noting that appellate courts ignore prejudicial error when the prejudice is de minimis); see also Katz v. Katz , (noting that appellate courts will not reverse a district

1(b)(2); (stating that “or” is generally disjunctive).

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

P. 61; (citing Minn. R. Civ.

See Goldman v. Greenwood , (recognizing that appellate courts “normally interpret the conjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if “an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION We limit o ur review of a district court’s determination on a motion to modify custody “to considering whether the [district] court abused its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law .” (quotation omitted) .

“Appellate courts 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.” (Mi nn.

See Goldman v. Greenwood , (recognizing that appellate courts “normally interpret the c onjunction ‘or’ as disjunctive rather than conjunctive”).

“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 omitted).

(custody); (parenting time).

When the issue turns on the district court’s findings of fact, we review its findings for clear error, “giving deference to the district court’s opportunity to evaluate witness credibility” and reversing only if we are left “with the de finite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” (Mi nn.