Cited by

“A n evidentiary error must be both an abuse of discretion and prejudicial to warrant reversal.”

In order to impute potential income to an obligor, the district court must make “a finding of bad faith or unjustifiable self-limitation of income.”

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and 11 is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).

“A district court’s determination of income for maintenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).

“A district court generally has broad discretion in its decisions regarding spousal maintenance[,]” including whether to reserve maintenance, rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

5 170, 175 (Minn. App. 2020); Melius v. Melius

(explaining that district court may consider obligee’s ability to meet needs independently through full-time employment).

“A district court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence will only be reversed if the court abused its discretion and the abuse of discretion prejudiced the objecting party.” (emphasis added).

“Evidentiary weight and witness credibility are within the province of the fact -finder.”

24 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that a district court “may consider a maintenance recipient ’s prospective ability to become fully or partially self-supporting without making a finding that the recipient has acted in bad faith to remain unemploy

Appellate courts review “questions of law related to spousal maintenance de novo.”

d 411, 414 (Minn. App. 2009).

Appellate courts review “questions of law related to spousal maintenance de novo.”

2(c) (2020);7 (“In determining spousa l maintenance, the district court must consider the standard of living established during the marriage.” (emphasis added)).

( (articulating clear-error standard of review)).

While a bad-faith finding is necessary when imputing a maintenance obligor’s income if the obligor is unemployed or has otherwise unjustifiably self-limited their income, see Melius v. Melius , d 411, 415-16 (Minn. App. 2009 ), husband has cited no authority holding that bad faith is required to find that it is impracticable to determine the actual income of a self-employed maintenance obligor.

Out-of-court statements are not hearsay “if the declarant testifies at the trial, is subject to cross -examination concerning the statement, and the statement describes or explains ‘an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition or immediately thereafter.’” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

“The purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

Melius v. 8 Melius, see Minn. Stat. § 518A.32 (2018).

d 411, 414 (Minn. App. 2009).

Melius v. Melius , (maintenance); Butt v. Schmidt , (support).

E.g., Haefele, d at 708 (child support); (spousal maintenance).

“A district court’s determinat ion of income for main tenance purposes is a finding of fact and is not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” d 411, 414 (Minn. App. 2009) ( quotation omitted).

But evidentia ry rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and the only authority provided by husband in support of his assertion that th e district court was required to consider his expert’s affidavit is an unpublished opinion, which is distinguishable in addition to lacking precedential authority.

Melius v. Melius , d 411, 415 (Minn. App. 2009).

(child support); Melius v. Melius , (spousal maintenance).

“The purpose of a maintenance award is to allow the recipient and the obligor to have a standard of living that approximates the marital standard of living, as closely as is equitable under the 8 circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

see also Gessner, d at 923 (stating that we will uphold a district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous).

In determining a spousal -maintenance award, the district court may consider an obligor’s earning capacity if “it is impracticable to determine an obligor’s actual income,” or “the obligor’s actual income is unjustifiably self-limited.” (quotation omitted).