Cited by

Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , d 285, 290, 295 (Minn. App. 2007) .

See, e.g., Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , -96 (Minn. App. 2007); Geske v. Marcolina , -19 (Minn. App. 2001).

See Szarzynski v. Szarzynski

Szarzynski v. Szarzynski

Szarzynski v. Szarzynski

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc ., (declining to address an issue absent adequate briefing); Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , (citing Wintz).

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unles s 10 prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , (quotation omitted); (citing Modern Recycling and concluding that because party’s argument on appeal was not specific, he waived the issue).

6(c); (“Whether a party makes a prima facie case .

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not 9 supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspec tion.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc., (quotation omitted); see also Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , -96 (Minn. App. 2007) (citing to Modern Recycling and concluding that because the father’s argument on appeal was not specific, he waived the issue).

“A district court, however, has discretion in deciding whether a moving party makes a prima facie case to modify custody.”

d 285, 291 n.3 (Minn. App. 2007).

Conduct-based Attorney Fees Conduct-based attorney fees “may be awarded against a party who unreasonably contributes to the lengt h or expense of the proceedings and are discretionary with the district court.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd.

These conduct-based fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.”

See, e.g., Madden, d at 702; Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , -96 (Minn. App. 2007) ; Geske v. Marcolina , 8-19 (Minn. App. 2001).

(finding no requirement for an evidentiary hearing when “[a]ppellant’s affidavit was devoid of allegations supported by any specific, credible evidence”).

Conduct-ba sed fee awards “are discretionary with the district court.” Szarzynski v. Szarzynski

1 (2016); (“Conduct-based fee awards may be awarded against a party who unreasonably contributes to the length or expense of the proceeding and are discretionary with the district court.”).

571 (Minn. App. 2013) (adoptive placement); Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , , 292 (Minn. App. 2007) *69 (modification of custody); Sanderson v. State , , 226 (Minn. App. 1999) (ineffective assistance of counsel).

(–66 (Minn. App. 2002), and stating in a parenthetical that the “use of an incorrect standard to resolve an issue constitutes an abuse of discretion”).

Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , , 292 (Minn. App. 2007).

In determining whether there has been such a change of circumstances, t he district court should consider “unwarranted denial of, or interference with, a duly 5 established parenting time schedule ,” Minn. Stat. § 518.18(d), though such interference generally is not “an independently sufficient basis to modify custody,”

“ [S]tipulated judgments are generally deemed binding contracts.”

see Reinke v. Reinke , (stating that an award of attorney fees will rarely be reversed).

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

a district court’s custody ruling.”

See Szarzynski v. Szarzynski , n.3 (Minn. App. 2007) (decli ning to address issue because it was first mentioned in party’s reply brief).

We review an award of conduct - .

(rejecting due process argument).

Minn. Stat. § 518.185; 6 (Minn. App. 2007).

Second, our careful review of the record assures us that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s informal continuance request.1 Whether to continue a hearing “is discretionary with the district court.” -97 (Minn. App. 2007).