Cited by

“[T]he opportunity for a self-employed person to support himself yet report a negligible net income is too well known to require exposition.”

und that mother “testified that she is not paid for all the hours she works —only when a client sees her for a service ,” and that “[mother] provided extensive documentation to support her testimony.” We have acknowledged that the “opportunity for a self-employed person to support [herself] yet report a negligible net income is too well known to require exposition .”

A district court has broad discretion when dealing with self-employed individuals because “the opportunity for a self-employed person to support [them]self yet report a negligible net income is too well known to require exposition.”

Furthermore, this court has recognized “the opportunity for a self-employed person to support himself yet report a negligible net income.” d 104, 108 (Minn. App. 1984).

“[ T]he opportunity for a self -employed person to support himself yet report a negligible net income is too well known to require exposition.”

Further, the district court, quoting Ferguson v. Ferguson , found that husband’s income was much higher than what husband had indicated, noting that “the opportunity for a self -employed person to support himself yet report negligible net income is too we ll known to require exposition.” Husband contends that the district court overstated his inco

14, 1999); Melius, d at 416-17).

(stating that a district court may use earning capacity to measure income if it is either impracticable to determine an obligor’s actual income or his income is “unjustifiably self-limited”); (“[T]he opportunity for a self- employed person to support himself yet report a negligible income is too well known to require exposition.”).

14, 1999); (“Trial courts may use earning capacity to measure income if it is either impracticable to determine an obligor’s actual income or the obligor’s income is unjustifiably self-limited.”); (stating that “the opportunity for a self-employed person to support himself yet report a negligible net income is too well known to require exposition”).

Beede, d at 835 ; (stating “opportunity for a self-employed person to support himself yet report a negligible net income is too well known to require exposition”).

(concluding trial court correctly imputed income where support obligor recently changed employment status).

(citing Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145 , ); (“[I]n Minnesota the owner of property is presumptively knowledgable about its value.”) DECISION We affirm the trial court’s valuation of the homestead, but reverse and remand for further findings on the issues of permanent maintenance and division of assets.

Hertz v. Hertz, 304 Minn. 144, 145

See, e.g., LeTendre, d at 416 (given the evident difficulty in determining the net income of self-employed persons, the trial court’s finding on income, based on earning capacity, was not clearly erroneous); (“the opportunity for a self-employed person to support himself yet report a negligible income is too well known to require exposition”).

(trial courts may consider past earnings in setting child support).

the court considered appellant’s past earnings in setting support.

Those cases involve parties who recently changed from a wage-earner to self-employment, see, or who receive income from other sources

this court stated: Where conflicting opinions of expert witnesses have a reasonable basis in fact, the trier of fact must decide who is right, and the decision will not be overturned on appeal.