Cited by

She maintains that the district court has authority to grant her relief based on (1) its broad discretion to provide for support of the children, (2) the statute providing that modification of support is retroactive to the date of the modification motion, Minn. Stat. § 518A.39, subd.

A district court abuses its discretion if it resolves a matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.”

The district court “is accorded broad discretion” with respect to “support of the children of the parties.”

d 47, 51 (Minn. 1984); Szarzynski, d at 295.

(noting that “a district court needs great leeway in making a custody decision that serves a child’s best interests, in light of each child’s unique family circumstance”).

oneous applications of law, but accord the trial court discretion in its ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard”); O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, (“An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court resolves the matter in a manner that is ‘against logic and the facts on [the] record.’” ()).

District courts have “broad discretion with respect to the division of property.”

The district court “has broad discretion in evaluating and dividing property in a marital dissolution and will not be overturned except for abuse of discretion.” Antone, d at 100; (observing that “[i]t is well settled in cases involving the dissolution of marriages that the trial court is accorded broad discretion with respect to the division of property” and “allowance of alimony or maintenance”).

When reviewing the division of property, we will only conclude that a district court abused its discretion if its determination was “against logic and the facts on the record.” ).

A district court abuses its discretion in dividing property if it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.” Rutten v. Rutten

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court resolves the matter in a manner that is against logic and the facts on [the] record.” O’Donnell v. O’Donnell, (quoting Rutten v. Rutten , .

For a district court to commit reversible error when splitting property between parties, the property must be divided in a way that is “against logic and the facts on record.”

8 Rutten, in support of that approach.

d 47, 51 (Minn. 1984); Szarzynski, d at 295.

A district court abuses its discretion if it resolves the matter in a manner that is “against logic and the facts on record.”

(spousal maintenance); (child support).

A district court abuses its discretion in dividing property if it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.”

(“There must be a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record before this court will find that the trial court abused it s discretion.”).

A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is against logic and the facts in the record or misapplies the law.2

Rutten v. Rutten , (M inn.

We will uphold a district court’s determination of child support unless it is “against logic and the facts on record.” d 47, 50 (Minn. 1984).

See Thornton v. Bosquez , (“[A] district court need s great leeway in making a cu stody decision that serves a child’s best interests, in light of each child’s unique family circumstance.”)

A district court abuses its discretion in dividing property if it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.” Rutten v. Rutten

A district court abuses its discretion in dividing property if it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.”