Cited by

issory notes when their claimed interest concerned attached property and lien priority rather than the debt at issue); Miller, d at 494-96 (holding that beneficiary had no interest in the division of retirement accounts in a dissolution action where the beneficiary’s interest arose from the disposition of the decedent’s estate and not the marital property dispute); -82 (Minn. App. 1999) (holding that intervenor had no interest in a dissolution action where its claimed interest was tied to child-

(stating appellate courts do not assume district court error); d 278, 283 (Minn. App. 1999) (applying Loth); Minn. R. Civ.

See, e.g., Loth v. Loth , (stating appellate courts do not assume district court error); (applying Loth); Minn. R. Civ.

See, (stating appellate courts do not assume district court error); (applying Loth); Minn. R. Civ.

Loth, d at 546; (applying Loth in a family-law appeal).

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.”); (quoting Waters); (applying Loth).

(explaining that “error is never presumed” on appeal, that it “must be made to appear affirmatively” before a reviewing court can reverse, and that the burden of showing error rests upon the party who asserts it); (citing Loth).

(applying this aspect of Loth).

(noting that error is “never” presumed on appeal); (stating that appellate courts “cannot presume error by the district court”); (citing Loth).

d 278, 283 (Minn. App. 1999) ().

[T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.”); (quoting this aspect of Waters in a family-law appeal); (applying this aspect of Loth ).

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” -65 (Minn. 1944); (discussing Waters); (applying Loth).

upon the one who relies upon it”); (quoting this aspect of Waters in a family law appeal); (applying this aspect of Loth).

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” - 65 (Minn. 1944)

” (quotation omitted)); (applying Loth in a family-law appeal).

Vangsness v. Vangsness , (“That the record might support findings other than those made by the trial court does not show that the [trial] court’s findings are defective.”); ( recognizing that complainant has duty to show that district court erred in family-law appeal).

See Waters v. Fiebelkorn , -65 (Minn. 1944); see also Luthen v. Luthen

as a designated beneficiary of a portion of the accounts, Miller “acted in contravention to the Judgment and Decree by designating beneficiaries to his account other than Ms. Spera.” the court reasoned that “strong public policy discourages third party intervention in dissolution matters.” The court concluded that although K.M.M.

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it” (quoting Waters v. Fiebelkorn , -65 (1944)); (applying this aspect of Loth).

But this court cannot assume that the district court erred based on its language alon e. See Loth v. Loth , (stating that appellate courts cannot assume district court error); (applying Loth, stating appellate courts “cannot assume that the district court will neglect its duty to independently 3 Father asserts that the distric t court’s statement that “[r]ul e 377.09 subd.

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” Waters v. Fiebelkorn , 216 Minn. 489, 495, -65 (1944); see Loth v. Loth , 227 Minn. 387, 392, (quoting Waters in a family-law appeal); (applying Loth in a family-law appeal).

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who re lies upon it” 9 (quoting Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 216 Minn. 489, 495, -65 (1944)); (applying this aspect of Loth).

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it” 6 (quoting Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 216 Minn. 489, 495, -65 (1944)); (applying this aspect of Loth).

See Loth v. Loth, 227 Minn. 387, 392, d 542, 546 (1949) (stating that appellate courts cannot assume district court error); (applying Loth).

[and] the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 216 Minn. 489, 495, -65 (1944); see Loth v. Loth, 227 Minn. 387, 392, 9 (1949) (quoting Waters in a family law appeal); (applying Loth in a family law appeal).

(citing Loth v. Loth, 227 Minn. 387, 392 , ).

(considering dangers of establishing precedent); Petition of Minn. Power & Light Co., (same), review denied (Minn. Apr.