Cited by

Appellate courts are “limited to determining whether the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court’s determinations regarding witness credibility.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

“A reviewing court is limited to determining whether the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court’s determinations regarding witness credibility.” d 506, 510 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

4 court’s findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court’s determinations regarding witness credibility .” In re Guardianship of Wells , d 506, 510 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

(regarding statutory interpretation), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

Therefore, we are “limited to determining whether the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court’s determinations regarding witness credibility.” d 506, 510 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

The district court found Yess’s testimony to be credible, and we give “due regard to the district court’s determinations regarding witness credibility.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

d 506, 510 (Minn. App. 2007), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

1 “The appointment of a guardian is uniquely within the discretion of the appointing court, and we will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion except in the case of a clear abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

“A reviewing court is limited to determining whether the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court’s determinations regarding witness credibility.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

- 08 (Minn. App. 2007) (affirming appointment of third -party conservator despite person subject to conservatorship expressing preference for one of her daughters due to intrafamily conflict) , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

6 error and view the record in the light most favorable to those findings, rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

DECISION “The appointment of a guardian is generally within the discretion of the district court.” review denied (Minn. Sept.

See In re Guardianship of Wells , review denied (Minn. Sept.

We review a district court’s order appointing a guardian to determine “whether the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court’s determinations [about] witness credibility.” review 1 Many of the guardi anship statutes, Minn. Stat. §§ 524.5-101 to - 505 (2018) , were amended effective August 1, 2020.

5 This court reviews a district court’s order appointing a guardian to determine “whether the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court’s determinations regarding witness credibility.” In re Guardianship of Wells , review denied (Minn. Sept.

“A reviewing court is limited to determining whether the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court’s determinations regarding witness credibility.” d 506, 510 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Sept.

“A reviewing court is limited to determining whether the distr ict court’s findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court’s determinations regarding witness credibility.” review denied (Minn. Sept.

In re Guardianship of Wells , review denied (Minn. Sept.

“A reviewing court is limited to determining whether the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the district court’s determinations regarding witness credibility.” review denied (Minn. Sept.

review denied (Minn. Sept.

-09 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Sept.