Cited by

Broad deference is afforded to findings on asset valuation “because valuation is necessarily an approximation in many cases.” 5 (quotation omitted).

[that] shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation and citation omitted).

The district court’s finding of “the specific value of an asset is a finding of fact” that “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

d earning levels in the community,” and imputed “gross annual income to [wife] in the amount of $100,000 or gross monthly income potential of $8,333.00.” Wife argues that the district court improperly imputed income to her “because she was not underemployed in bad faith.” To support her position, rev’d on other grounds

“Determining the specific value of an asset is a finding of fact.”

The district court’s valuation of an asset when dividing property is a finding of fact that “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

A district court’s determination of the value of an asset is a finding of fact that “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.”

The district court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact which “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

Thus, the district court determined “Husband shall pay Wife $34,000 for her marital portion of the equity in the home.” A district court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact that “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.”

A. Valuation of Chiropractic Business The district court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact, which “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” d 604, 606 (Minn. 2001) (quotation omitted).

at 100-01; Minn. R. Civ.

The district court’s valuation of an asset is a finding of fact which “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

The district court’s determination of “the specific value of an asset is a finding of fact” and “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

“Determining the specific value of an asset is a finding of fact,” which an appellate court will not “set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

“Determining the specific value of an asset is a finding of fact,” which an appellate court will not “set aside unless clearly erroneous on the record as a whole.” (quotation omitted).

“[T]he value arrived at by the trial court need only fall “within a reasonable range of figures.”

s v. Curtis, -54 (Minn. 2016) (rejecting, in a spousal-maintenance dispute, a proposed “bright-line rule” because that proposed rule would, among other things, be “inconsistent with a district court’s broad discretion, which allows it to determine what needs are reasonable, what amount of self-support is adequate, and what income the assets can provide”); -07 (Minn. 2001) (rejecting a proposed bright-line rule that a district court, when valuing property, can consider tax consequences only when

(affording “broad deference” to the district court’s valuation of an asset because, generally, the valuation is an approximation).

(addressing a district court’s consideration of capital gains taxes).

that a district court is not required to consider income taxes when ruling on a request for spousal maintenance.

Under Minnesota law, “it is within the [d istrict] court’s discretion to consider the tax consequences of its [marital property] award.” (quoting Aaron v. Aaron , (M inn.

Under Minnesota law, “it is within the [dis trict] court’s discretion to consider the tax consequences of its [marital property] award.” Maurer v. Maurer , ().