" (quotations and citations omitted) ); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Khait, 227 A.D.2d 551, 643 N.Y.S.2d 163, 164 (1996) (holding that "[b]y actively participating in the selection of the arbitrators and in adjourning the arbitration hearing without any reservation of rights" party "participated in arbitration proceeding" and thereby waived statutory right to stay of arbitration). But see Borg, Inc. v. Morris Middle Sch. Dist. No. 54, 3 Ill.App.3d 913, 278 N.E.2d 818, 820–21 (1972) (holding that school district not estopped from raising question of agreement to arbitrate where school district filed answer to arbitration demand and counterclaim and participated in selection of arbitrators before raising objection); Dachtera v. Whitehouse, 609 N.W.2d 248, 250 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000) (rejecting argument that parties waived right to object to arbitration by not filing declaratory judgment until arbitration had progressed through payment of filing fees and selection of arbitrator, where parties filed action before arbitration hearing). ¶ 16.

Questions of statutory interpretation and of the application of a statute to undisputed facts are questions of law this court reviews de novo. Nash v. Wollan, 656 N.W.2d 585, 589 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 2003); Dachtera v. Whitehouse, 609 N.W.2d 248, 249 (Minn.App. 2000). While appellant's bankruptcy and the partnership dissolution were ancillary to the marital dissolution, this fact, by itself, does not render the fee awards improper.

The application of a statute to undisputed facts also presents a question of law. Dachtera v. Whitehouse, 609 N.W.2d 248, 249 (Minn.App. 2000). The enforcement and modification of foreign child-support orders is controlled by the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). Minn. Stat. §§ 518C.101 to .902 (2004).

The parties agree that Arizona law applies to Watson's rights with regard to the Sudovest note. Statutory construction and the application of a statute to undisputed facts presents a question of law, which this court reviews de novo without being bound by the district court's decision. Dachtera v. Whitehouse, 609 N.W.2d 248, 249 (Minn.App. 2000). Arizona and Minnesota law are identical in all provisions relating to the Uniform Commercial Code that are relevant to this case.