Cited by

A district court may deny conduct-based fees if both parties “contributed to the unnecessary length of the[] proceedings.” n.5 (Minn. App. 1996), rev. denied (Minn. July 10, 1996); (noting that “the actions of both parties contributed to the expense involved in this case” in affirming denial of conduct-based fees), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

P. 61 (requiring harmless error to be ignored); see, (declining to address merits of the district court’s denial of a motion to compel because, even “if the [district] court’s refusal to require father to produce the financial information was an error, that error was harmless”), rev. denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

We recognize that absent certain findings, it may be unclear if certain expenses relate to a child or are “improperly supplementing [a spouse’s] standard of living.” (reasoning that father’s support obligation could be supplementing mother’s standard of living because it was unclear what expenses related to the child’s special needs), rev. denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

(stating that absent motion for new trial, 4 appellate courts may review whether evidence supports findings of fact and whether findings support conclusions of law and judgment); K (stating, in a case in which the appellant did not seek district court review of a referee’s ruling, that the scope of review on appeal was limited to “whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law and the judgment”), rev. denied (

review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

Because Beland appeals directly from the CSM’s order, our scope of review is limited to “whether the evidence sustains the [CS M’s] findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law and the judgment.” Kahn v. Tronnier , review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

Because father appeal s directly from the CSM’s order, our scope of review is limited to “whether the evidence sustains the [CSM’s] findings of fact and whether such findings sustain the conclusions of law and the judgment.” review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

See, -31 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996)

n.5 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

“District court review of a referee’s order is not a prerequisite to our review of that order, but district court review is in the nature of a motion for amended findings or a new trial and would affect the scope of review on appeal.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

(holding that district-court review of referee’s ruling is in nature *550 of motion for new trial), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996); Minn. R. Civ.App.

review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

(district court review of referee’s order not prerequisite to appeal, but analogous to motion for amended findings or new trial and affects scope of review on appeal), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

(admission of evidence); (granting discovery request), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996).

(admission of evidence); (granting discovery request), review denied (Minn. July 10,1996).

§ 645.16 (1996) (requiring construction of statutes so as to give effect to all terms); see, (remanding for trial court to specifically address child support criteria, under applicable statute providing court “shall make written findings” upon deviating from guidelines), review denied (Minn. July 10, 1996); (Minn.App.