Cited by

(noting appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).

As the supreme court has stated, the syllabus of a case “summarizes the [authoring court’s] holding.” (citing syllabus of a prior opinion as authority).

(stating that appellate courts defer to the district court’s credibility determinations); -91 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that the district court did not err by determining value of property based on a party’s testimony).

We are an error correcting court, and it is not our place to contemplate policy considerations entrusted to the legislature; d 547, 554 n.7 (Minn. 2016); (noting a party’s “meritorious policy arguments” supporting his proposed readin

(noting that appellate courts defer to the district court’s credibility determinations).

In sum, o ur function is “ limited to identifying errors and then correcting them .”

(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”).

see also Alam v. Chowdhury , (“When evidence relevant to a factual issue consists of conflicting testimony, the district court ’s decision is necessarily based on a determination of witness credibility, which we accord great deference on appeal.”); Vangsness

(stating great deference is given to district court’s 3 credibility determinations).

Appellate courts defer to a district court’s credibility determinations, and do not reconcile conflicting evidence, Kenney, d at 221.

Sefkow v. Sefkow , see also In re Civ.

increase in the value of comparable homes over the same period of time, and explicitly stated that husband’s suggested value was “less credible” while wife’s suggested value was “more credible and better supported by the underlying circumstances.” Given our clear-error standard of review, and particularly our deference to the district court’s credibility determinations, we cannot say husband has shown that the district court clearly erred in valuing the marital home at $510,000.

We note that the supreme court has stated that “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” Sefkow v. 10 Sefkow

Sefkow, (stating that appellate courts “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, which are exclusively the province of the factfinder”).

“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”

d 86, 89 (Minn. App. 2009).

(recognizing that “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them” and not “reweighing the evidence and finding its own facts”).

When reviewing termination decisions, appellate courts give “[c]onsidera ble deference” to the district court due to its “superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses.” (quotation omitted); see also Sefkow v. Sefkow

(stating that appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).