Cited by

(stating that appellate courts “neither reconcile conflicting evidence nor decide issues of witness credibility, wh ich are exclusively the provin ce of the factfinder”).

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

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

“[T]he [distr ict] court abuse[s] its discretion by making findings unsupported by the evidence or by improperly applying the law.” (quotation omitted).

by Carver County Child Protection Services,” and that father pay mother “her total attorney’s fees that she has incurred to date.” At the outset, we must clarify that “[t]he function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” see Nelson v. Schlener

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

the district court determined the former wife's gross income and then "applied the Wisconsin and federal tax tables and calculated her annual net income."

(“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.”) ; accord State v. McCormick , (stating this court is “an 2 In briefing and oral argument to this court, Mechtel e

(quoting syllabus as authority); (citing syllabus of a prior opinion as authority).

The argument stands on unsteady ground, because we defer to the district court’s credibil ity assessment, and the district court f ound incredible Buchanan’s self -created spreadsheet reflecting the 2018 $13,200 return.

“The [district] court abuses its discretion by making findings unsupported by the record or by improperly applying the law.” (quotation omitted).

Sefkow v. Sefkow , (credibility determinations); Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , (implicit credibility 8 determinations).

Dobrin, d at 20 2, 202 n.3 ().

We defer to this credibility determination, Sefkow v. Sefkow , and the determination can be implicit.

Dobrin v. Dobrin , & n.3 (Minn. 1997) ().

23, 1988); (appellate court defers to district court’s credibility determinations).

2d 512, 514 (Minn. App. 2004) ().

“When determining whether findings are clearly erroneous, the appellate court views the record in the light most favorable to the [district] court’s findings,” and defers to the district court’s credibility determinations, , 210 (Minn. 1988)

See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (noting that “the function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors [in t he present proceeding] and then correcting them”).

It is well established that we defer “to the opportunity of the trial court to assess the credibility of the witnesses.”

Dobrin v. Dobrin , & n.3 (Minn. 1997) (citing Sefkow v. Sefkow , ).

See, e.g., Sefkow v. Sefkow , (stating appellate published decisions become binding when supreme court denies review) .

See Sefkow v. Sefkow , (noting t hat appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations).

Bd., (“The role of the court of appeals is to correct errors, not to find facts.”); (cautioning that reviewing court exceeds its scope of review if it “usurp[s] the role of the [district] court by reweighing the evi dence and finding its own facts”).