Cited by

(need-based); -03 (Minn. App. 2019) (conduct-based).

“If a party requests spousal maintenance, a district court must engage in a two-step analysis.”

16 “If a party requests spousal maintenance, a district court must engage in a two-step analysis.”

(need); -03 (Minn. App. 2019) (conduct).

A district court abuses its discretion “if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.”

A district court abuses its discretion “if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.” d 688, 696 (Minn. App. 2019).

A district court abuses its discretion “if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.”

-03 (Minn. App. 2019) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to an award of conduct- 2 This statute was amended during the pendency of this action, effective for proceedings “commenced on or after” August 1, 2024.

“If a party requests spousal maintenance, a district court must engage in a two-step analysis.”

A district court may modify an existing spousal-maintenance order if the party seeking modification “makes a showing of a substantial change in circumstances that makes the existing award unreasonable and unfair.” (quotation omitted).

A district court abuses its discretion when it “makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.”

1 (2022)); – 03 (Minn. App. 2019) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to an award of conduct-based attorney fees under Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd.

A district court abuses its discretion “if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.”

A district court abuses its discretion when it “makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on the record.”

When “a modification decision depends on findings of fact, we apply a clear error standard of review to those findings of fact.” ().

A district court abuses its discretion “if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.” Madden v. Madden

A district court may modify an award of spousal maintenance if the party seeking such modification demonstrates “a substantial change in circumstances that makes the existing award ‘unreasonable and unfair.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd.

A district court abuses its discretion “if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.” d 688, 696 (Minn. App. 2019).

A district court abuses its discretion “if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.”

A district court abuses its discretion “if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a 5 manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.” d 688, 696 (Minn. App. 2019).

A district court abuses its discretion “if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.” d 688, 696 (Minn. App. 2019).

“A district court abuses its discretion in making such a decision if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.” see Woolsey, d at 506 (same); (same).

5 v. Madden, see also Minn. Stat. § 518.552, subd.

SYLLABUS On a motion to modify an award of permanent spousal maintenance, this court’s , prevents the district court from finding that the obligee has potential income only if the obligor argues that the obligee failed to make reasonable efforts to increase his or her earning capacity by obtaining additional education or vocational training.

“If a party requests spousal maintenance, a district court must engage in a two-step analysis.”

( taking same approach).

“A district court abuses its discretion ‘if it makes findings of fact that are not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.’” ().

A district court abuses its discretion “if it ma kes findings of fact that ar e not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.”

A district court abuses its discretion “if it ma kes findings of fact that ar e not supported by the record, misapplies the law, or resolves the matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.”

A district court abuses its discretion if, among other things, it “misapplie s the law, or resolves the 22 matter in a manner that is contrary to logic and the facts on record.”