Cited by

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

(applying standard 4 This statute was amended and renumbered effective August 1, 2024.

A district court’s child-support decision must include written findings on “(1) each parent’s gross income; (2) each parent’s [parental income for determining child support]; and (3) any other significant evidentiary factors affecting the child support determination.” Minn. Stat. § 518A.37, su

“A district court abuses its discretion by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is ‘against logic and the facts on record.’” (quoting Dobrin v. Dobrin , d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997)).

(citing this aspect of Dobrin).

d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997).

(property); (maintenance).

-07 (Minn. 2001) (rejecting a proposed bright-line rule that a district court, when valuing property, can consider tax consequences only when they are either required by dissolution or certain to occur within a short time thereafter, stating that “[s]uch a bright-line rule would leave little, if any, room for the exercise of discretion”); (stating that “[w]e take this opportunity to remind counsel that each marital dissolution proceeding is unique and centers upon the individualized facts and ci

7 (Minn. 2022) (reciting this three-part definition of abuse of discretion).

see also Dobrin v. Dobrin , (applying this aspect of Dobrin in an adoption appeal).

A district court abuses its discret ion “by making findings of fact that are unsupported by the evidence, misapplying the law, or delivering a decision that is ‘against logic and the facts on record.’” ().

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

d 257, 262 (Minn. 2022); see In re Adoption of T.A.M.

We review the district court’s spousal -maintenance decision for a “clear abuse” of the district court’s “broad discretion.”

Bender v. Bernhard , ; (same); Dobrin v. Dobrin , (same).

A district court abuses its discretion if it resolves the matter in a manner “that is against logic 5 and the facts on record.” ().

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

d 199, 202 (Minn. 1997); see Honke v. Honke , (c iting this aspect of Dobrin).

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.”

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