Cited by

(stating that issues not raised in the district court will not be considered on appeal).

2, (holding that the supreme court will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if it is convinced that the district court abused its direction by resolving the matter in a manner that is against logic and the facts o n the record).

347-48 (Minn. 2002); Brazinsky v. Brazinsk y

Minnesota courts have “long presumed that statutes are consistent with the common law, and if a 10 statute abrogates the common law, the abrogation must be by express wording or necessary implication.” Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., (quotation omitted); (“[S]tatutes are not to be construed in derogation of well-established principles of the common law or equity unless such a construction is required by the express words of the statute or by necessary implication.”).

Appellate review of this order implicates “the state’s interest in protecting the well-being of [the] child[].” (invoking appellate rule 103.04 in a child support appeal to decide an issue not raised in the district court because a child’s well-being was at stake).

The district court has broad discretion in awarding child support, and this court will reverse the district court only if it is convinced that the district court resolved the matter in a manner “against logic and the facts on record.”

Child-support matters are committed to the district court’s discretion, which “must be exercised within the limits set by the legislature.”

“[T]he district court enjoys broad discretion in ordering modifications to child support orders.”

“[T]he district court enjoys broad discretion in ordering modifications to child support orders.”

“We will reverse a district court’s order regarding child support only if we are convinced that the district court 4 abused its broad discretion by reaching a clearly erroneous conclusion that is against logic and the facts on record.”

“[T]he district court enjoys broad discretion in ordering modifications to child support orders.”

App. P. 103.04; (stating that the rule that appellate courts will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal is not “ironclad” (quotation omitted)).

“Whether a parent is voluntarily unemployed is a finding of fact, which [appellate courts] review for clear error.” ( (concluding that magistrate abused his discretion by making the clearly erroneous finding that the father was not voluntarily unemployed)).

A district court’s order regarding child support will be reversed if the district court abused its discretion by resolving the matter in a manner “that is against logic and the facts on record.”

A district court abuses its discretion if it acts “against logic and the facts on record.”

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is “against logic and the facts on record.” (stating that “[f]indings of fact are clearly erroneous when they are manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole”) (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Aug.

(applying abuse-of-discretion standard to CSM’s previously unreviewed decision).

A factual finding is clearly erroneous only if it is “against logic and the facts on record,” leaving us with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Vangsness, d at 472.