need for an evidentiary hearing in Minnesota

2016When reviewing an order denying a motion to modify custody without an evidentiary hearing, this court: (1) reviews de novo whether the district court accepted the moving party’s allegations as true; (2) reviews for an abuse of discretion the district court’s determination as to whether a prima facie case exists for the modification; and (3) reviews de novo “whether the district court properly determined the need for an evidentiary hearing.” Boland v. Murtha, 800 N.W.2d 179, 185 (Minn. App. 2011). 10 In mother’s affidavit, she alleged that, other than the status of her professional training, he

2016Evidentiary Hearing “We review de novo whether the district court properly determined the need for an evidentiary hearing.” Boland, 800 N.W.2d at 185 .

2016“A district court is required under [Minn. Stat. §] 518.18 (d) to conduct an evidentiary hearing only if the party seeking to modify a custody order makes a prima facie case for modification.” Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279, 284 (Minn. 2008).

2004This is an unwarranted expansion of the need for an evidentiary hearing that we recognized in Ferguson v. State, 645 N.W.2d 437, 446 (Minn.2002).

2004This is an unwarranted expansion of the need for an evidentiary hearing that we recognized in Ferguson v. State, 645 N.W.2d 437, 446 (Minn.2002).

1992We indicated, however, that if defendant again petitioned the district court and pleaded “factual allegations indicating a need for an evidentiary hearing,” id. at 183 (emphasis in original), he should be given such a hearing.