Cited by

ard “is not fatal to an award where review of the order ‘reasonably implies’ that the district court considered the relevant factors and where 18 the district court ‘was familiar with the history of the case’ and ‘had access to the parties’ financial records.’” (-26 (Minn. 1999).

“The standard of review for an appellate court examining an award of attorney fees is whether the district court abused its discretion.”

review denied (Minn. Sept.

But a district court may waive the requirements of rule 119 when “the court is familiar with the history of the case and has access to the parties’ financial information.”

d 814, 825 (Minn. 1999).

gs on the statutory factors for a need-based fee award “is not fatal to an award where review of the order ‘reasonably implies’ that the district court considered the relevant factors and where the district court ‘was familiar with the history of the case’ and ‘had access to the parties’ financial records.’” (-26 (Minn. 1999)).

Under the equitable doctrine of laches, “when one sits on one’s rights for too long a time, that person’s claim should be estopped from continuing because it would be inequitable to require the defendant to fight the suit.” (emphasis added).

(need- 9 based fees); (conduct- based fees).

A district court abuses its discretion when it reaches a “conclusion that is against the logic and the facts on the record.” (quotation omitted).

*708 Generally, we review orders modifying child support for abuse of discretion, and will reverse only if the district court “abused its broad discretion by reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record,”

“The doctrine of unclean hands bars a party who acted inequitably from obtaining equitable relief.” (quotation omitted); (“[A] party may be denied relief where [the party’s] conduct has been unconscionable by reason of a bad motive, or where the result induced by [the party’s] conduct will be unconscionable either in the benefit to [the party] or the injury to others.” (quotation omitted)).

To the contrary, we have consistently stated that “[a] misrepresentation may be made either (1) by an affirmative statement that is itself false or (2) by concealing or not disclosing certain facts that render the facts that are disclosed misleading.” Caritas, d at 289 ; see also Heidbreder, d at 367 (same); (same); (same).

statements, a moving party may either submit unredacted billing statements to a district court for in camera review or, alternatively, “the court can permit submission of redacted copies, with privileged material removed from all copies.” We note that rule 119 “is not intended to limit the court’s discretion, but is intended to encourage streamlined handling of fee applications.” (quotation omitted).