Cited by

We acknowledge that conflicting testimony was presented at the hearing, but “the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”

“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”

(“A district court’s decision to reopen the judgment and decree based on fraud 5 will be sustained absent an abuse of discretion.”).

see also Alam v. Chowdhury , (“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court ’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”); Vangsness v. Vangsness , (noting “[

d 86, 89 (Minn. App. 2009).

While mother also provided testimony that “[son] wanted to be with his friends,” the district court also found son “made friends at Le Sueur- Henderson.” “When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”

Further, “when evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”

“A district court’s decision to reopen the judgment and decree based on fraud on the court will be sustained absent an abuse of discretion.” 7 Alam v. Chowdhury

(“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness cred ibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”).

(“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court's decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”); see also Sefkow, d at 210 (stating that appellate courts defer t

“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.” Alam v. Chowdhury

“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimon y, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we 10 accord great deference on appeal.”

“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determinat ion of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”

Father’s testimony contradicts this finding, but “[w]hen evidence rele vant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.” (stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).

The statute also expressly allows a district court to “set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.” Id.; d 86, 89 (Minn. App. 2009) (affirming the reopening of a judgment after a showing of fraud upon the court).

Generally, “when a district court uses a valuation date other than the date of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, the date usually bears a rational relationship to the facts of the dissolution in question.” d 86, 92 (Minn. App. 2009).

d 86, 89 (Minn. App. 2009); see also Rogers, d at 658.

We accord “great deference” to the district court’s credibility determination, and on appeal we will not re-weigh the evidence or make additional credibility determinations, which are left to the sound discretion of the district court.

“[W]hen a district court uses a valuation date other than the date of the initially scheduled prehearing settlement conference, the date usually bears a rational relationship to the facts of the dissolution in question.”