Cited by

(“A court may take judicial notice of the course of the calendar.”); (“An appellate court may take judicial notice of a fact for the first time on ap peal.” (quotation omitted)).

16, 2010) ; see also Hesse v. Hesse , (concluding de minimis change in expenses did not warrant a parenting-time-expense adjustment of child support) ; (refusing to remand for de minis error in child-support calculation).

71 (Minn. 1976) (stating, in a custody dispute, that findings on the statutory factors are required because 16 they “(1) assure consideration of the statutory f actors by the family court; (2) facilitate appellate review of the family court’s custody decision; and (3) satisfy the parties that this important decision was carefully and fairly considered by the family court”); (citing this aspect of Rosenfeld in a parenting-time dispute).

25, 2003); (citin g this aspect of Eisenschenk when refusing to grant relief on appeal to the nonmoving party in a child-support dispute when it was the nonmoving party who failed to provide evidence of the relevant expenses).

d 98, 102 (Minn. App. 2009).

(citing Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk , review denied (Minn. Nov.

Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld, 311 Minn. 76, 82

A district court’s decision “will be upheld unless it committed clear error and its decisio n is against logic and the facts of record.”

“[T]he support obligor is entitled to a parenting - expense adjustment of his or her support obligation, based on the percentage of parenting time allocated to the obligor.”

“The district court has broad discretion when deciding child-support modification issues.”

means the percentage of parenting time scheduled under an existing court order, regardless of whether the parent exercises the full amount of court-ordered parenting time.”

(applying abuse-of-discretion standard to CSM’s previously unreviewed decision).

(“A court may take judicial notice of the course of the calendar.” (citing Webb v. Kennedy, 20 Minn. 419, 420, 20 Gil.