Cited by

2.” (quotation omitted).

Much as a district court has discretion in enforcing a property settlement, and in deciding whether to reopen and modify a property settlement, a district court that retains jurisdiction over a property settlement has discretion in determining whether and how to modify it.

4 unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or rendering a decision that is ‘against logic and the facts on record.’”

“A district [court] judge’s findings of fact are not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” (quotations omitted).

P. 60.02(a), and this court has “addressed both the statute and the rule in appeals from district court orders denying motions to vacate dissolution judgments.”

-38 (Minn. App. 2016) (“We defer to the district court’s credibility determinations as to conflicting affidavits.”).

“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or rendering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

(stating that “[d]eference must be given to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses”); (stating that “[c]onflicts in the evidence, even though the presentation is upon affidavits, are to be resolved by the trial court”); -38 (Minn. App. 2016) (citing this aspect of Straus).

20, 2009); (stating that “[c]onflicts in the evidence, even though the presentation is upon affidavits, are to be resolved by the trial court”); - 38 (Minn. App. 2016) (citing this aspect of Straus).

“The moving party must prove at least one of the statutory grounds for vacating by a preponderance of the evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

First, Minnesota courts adhere to the principle that “[s]ubject to the right of appeal, a dissolution judgment and decree is final when entered, unless in a timely motion a party establishes a statutory basis for reopening the judgment and decree.” see Minn. Stat. § 518.145, subd.

“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or rendering a 6 decision that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted).

5 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that district court’s findings “implicitly indicate[d]” that it found certain evidence credible); Knapp v. Knapp , (stating that “[appellate courts] defer to the district court’s credibility determinations as to conflicting affidavits”).

“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence.” (quotation omitted).

“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or rendering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted).

21, 2001); see also Knapp v. Knapp , (stating that moving party must prove statutory basis by a preponderance of the evidence).

“We defer to the district court ’s credibility determinations as to conflicting affidavits.” Knapp v. Knapp , Further, we “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, 9 which are exclusively the province of the factfinder.”

17, 2001) ; (“We conclude that a district court does not abuse 7 Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., see also Northland Temps., rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“[Appellate courts] defer to the district court’s credibility determinations as to conflicting affidavits.”

“C onflicts in the evidence, even though the presentation is upon affidavits, are to be resolved by the [district] court.” (quotation omitted).

“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings o f fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or rendering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted).

A district court judge’s findings of fact are not set asid e unless clearly erroneous.” Knapp v. Knapp , (citations and quotations omitted).

-38 (Minn. App. 2016), review denied (Minn. Sept.

-38 (Minn. App. 2016) (deferring to a district court’s imp licit resolution of factual questions).

“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the l aw, or rendering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.”

A district court’s findings of fact are not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” (citation and quotation omitted).

A district court abuses its discretion by making factual findings that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or “rendering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted).

A district court abuses its discretion by making factual findings that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or “rendering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.

(noting, in a different context, that the statute and the rule are functionally “identical”).

A district [court’s] findings of fact are not set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Knapp v. Knapp , (quotations and citation omitted).

“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or rendering a decision that is against logic and the facts on record.” (quotation omitted).

“Subject to the right of appeal, a dissolution 16 judgment and decree is final when entered, unl ess in a timely motion a party establishes a statutory basis for reopening the judgment and decree.” (quotation and citation omitted).

“We defer to the district court’s credibility determinations as to conflicting affidavits.” Knapp v. Knapp

“We defer to the district court’s credibility determinations as to conflicting affidavits.” Knapp v. Knapp

(evidence); (credibility).