Cited by

Olsen v. Olsen , , 800 (Minn. 1997).

Olsen v. Olsen , , 800 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted).

“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the [district] court ’s underlying findings of fact.”

d 797, 800 (Minn. 1997) .

“To overcome the presumption that property [acquired during the parties’ marriage] is marital, a party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is nonmarital.”

[I]f [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm convi ction that a mistake has been made, [it] may find the [district] court’s decision to be clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the existence of evidence to support such findings.” Olsen v. Olsen , (quotation and citation omitted); (stating that “[appellate courts] independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the di strict court’s findings of fact”).

“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but [this] court must defer to th e [district] court’s underlying findings of fact.”

“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the [district] court’s underlying findings of fact.”

“Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the [district] court’s underlying findings of fact.” (“[Appellate courts] independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”).

However, if [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, [it] may find the [district] court’s decision to be clearly erroneous, notwithstanding the existence of evidence to support such findings.” (quotation and citation omitted); (stating that “[appellate courts] independently review the issue of whether property is marital or nonmarital, giving deference to the district court’s findings of fact.”).

“For nonmarital property to maintain its nonmarital status, it must either be kept separate from marital property or, if commingled with marital property, be readily traceable.”

The district court concluded that her “interest in the Mdewakanton Community’s businesses is a non-marital asset, belonging only to her, [but that] the income received from the asset during the parties’ marriage is marital property.” “Whether property is marital or nonmarital is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the trial court’s underlying findings of fact.”

“Whether property is marital or nonmari-tal is a question of law, but a reviewing court must defer to the trial court’s underlying findings of fact.” (citation omitted).