Cited by

When conducting statutory interpretation, a court must first “determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.” (quotation omitted).

In reaching her decision, the CSM relied primarily on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s

It is well settled that “‘equity follows the law,’ and [appellate courts] may not ‘disregard statutory law or grant relief prohibited thereby.”’ (quoting Kingery v. Kingery, 241 N.W.

We review legal questions de novo, and will only set aside findings of fact if they are clearly erroneous, rev. denied (Minn. Mar.

The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face, and “[i]f a statute is unambiguous, we apply the statute’ s plain meaning.” (construing child-support statutes).

d 905, 914 (Minn. 2015).

9 earliest, to the date of service of notice of the motion to modify.”

Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(6) (citing Minn. Stat. § 518A.36 (2024)); n.1 (Minn. 2015)

3b, by first determining “whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.” (quotation omitted) (interpreting child-support statutes).

“Interpreting a statute is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.” (construing child support statutes).

Finally, father argues that but for these errors, he would have met his burden of proving that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred that made the existing child-support order unfair and made to the guidelines ‘basic support’ amount” when determining whether the presumptions apply), abrogated by

To do so, we must first “determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.”

Minn. Stat. § 518A.34(b)(6) (citing Minn. Stat. § 518A.36 (2022)); n.1 (Minn. 2015)

In interpreting statutory provisions, we are instructed to “interpret statutes as a whole, and the words and sentences therein are to be understood in the light of their context.” Floding v. Gillespie (In re Dakota C ounty), (quotations omitted).

30, 2014) and order granting review vacated

See Floding v. Gillespie (In re Dakota County ), (Mi nn.

of Grant v. Koser , d 237, 241 (Minn. App. 201 2), abrogated on other gr ounds by In re Dakota County

(statutes); In re Custody of D.T.R.

dismissed as improvidently granted, ).

604-08 (Minn. 2017) ; In re Dakota County , , 911-13 (Minn. 2015) ; State v. Wenthe , , 303 (Minn. 2015) ; Occhino , d at 359-61 ; In re Robledo , , 69 (Minn. App. 2000).

Hubbard County Health & Human Servs.

909 (Minn. 2015) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“If a statute is unambiguous, we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” (making this.

2(a) (2016); I n r e D a k o t a C t y .

dismissed as improvidently granted

“If a statute is unambiguous, [the court will] apply the statute’s plain meaning.”

When setting a child support obligation, the district court “must decide whether to deviate or not deviate” from the presumptively appropriate guidelines, and may do so to encourage prompt and regular support payments or to prevent the children and either parent from living in poverty, Minn. Stat. § 518A.43, subd.