Cited by

(Minn. 3 The documents that Horner offered to the district court were not presented as part of the sworn affidavit.

Husband contends that the district court abused its discretion “in awarding wife 18 conduct-based attorney fees when it was wife’s conduct that contributed to both the length and expense of this proceeding.” Conduct-based fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.”

294- 95 (Minn. App. 2007) (noting that the district court’s failure to apply the proper frivolous- litigant standard found in Minnesota Rule of General Practice 9.01 was an abuse of discretion).

at 507-08; (“Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , (considering whether a party made a prima facie case to modify custody based on an endangerment allegation).

(noting that a movant does not allege a prima facie case if the allegations are merely conclusory, are 6 “too vague to support a finding of endangerment,” or are “devoid of allegations supported by any specific, credible evidence” (quotations omitted)).

Co., -46 (Minn. 1997) (evidentiary rulings); -97 (Minn. App. 2007) (continuances).

Conduct-based attorney-fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.”

“[D]ue process of law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d)(iv) (2024); Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , –92 (Minn. App. 2007).

Father argues that the award should be reversed because it was based on the erroneously attributed statement discussed in section I and because the district court did not make requisite “record-based findings of unreasonable conduct.” 12 Conduct-based fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.”

(noting a party fails to make a prima facie case to modify custody if that party’s allegations are unsupported by competent evidence).

Conduct-based fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.” see al so Minn. Stat. §§ 518.14, subd.

(stating “[w]hile the district court must take the moving party’s allegations as true and disregard contrary allegations by others, the district court may consider allegations by others that .

Minn. Stat. § 257C.03, subd.

In Szarzynski v. Szarzynski, for example, we held that “lack of endangerment is fatal to a motion to modify custody.” (describing endangerment as a “threshold” for modifying custody).

(noting that a movant does not allege a prima facie case if the allegations are merely conclusory, are “too vague to support a finding of endangerment,” or are “devoid of allegations supported by any specific, credible evidence” (quotations omitted)).

This decision is “discretionary with the district court.”

(reversing determination that litigant was a “nuisance” because “it is unclear whether the district court applied” Minn. R. Gen.

are discretionary with the district court.” d 285, 295 (Minn. App. 2007).

The award of conduct-based attorney fees is “discretionary with the district court.”

Szarzynski v. Szarzynski

The award of conduct-based attorney fees is “discretionary with the district court.” see also Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd.

But whatever relief is sought, a prima facie case is not alleged if the allegations are merely conclusory, “too vague to support a finding,” or not “supported by any specific, credible evidence.” (quotations omitted).

A movant does not make a prima facie case if the movant’s allegations are merely conclusory, or are “too vague,” or are “devoid of allegations supported by any specific, credible evidence.” (quotations omitted).

And “lack of endangerment is fatal to a motion to modify custody.” (citing authorities) .

(noting that the district court’s failure to apply the proper frivolous-litigant standard found in Minnesota Rule of General Practice 9.01 was an abuse of discretion).

“Whether a party makes a prima facie case to modify custody is dispositive of whether an evidentiary hearing will occur on the motion.”

(stating, in the context of a motion to intervene, that “the court must accept the allegations in the pleadings as true, unless they are frivolous on their face”).

Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , A district court has discretion to award conduct-based attorney fees and costs against a party “who unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceedings.” Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd.

1 (2022); d 285, 294-95 (Minn. App. 2007).

PCs are “a creature of contract or of an agreement of the parties which is generally incorporated into (or at least referred to in) a district court’s custody ruling.”

Conduct-based fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.” d 285, 295 (Minn. App. 2007).

“Conduct-based fee awards may be awarded against a party who unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceedings and are discretionary with the district court.” Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd.

310.03(c)(2); d 285, 293 (Minn. App. 2007).

Conduct-based attorney fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.”