But wife introduced no evidence of husband's investment income and did not argue that husband failed to produce discovery. See Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003) (stating that "a party cannot complain about a district court's failure to rule in her favor" if one reason it did not do so was because she "failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question"), review denied (Minn. Nov. 23, 2003). As a result, any findings on husband's investment income would have been improperly speculative.
The district court may estimate a support obligor's income where the obligor is "voluntarily unemployed or underemployed" or where it is impracticable to determine the obligor's actual income. Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d) (2004) (voluntarily unemployed or underemployed); Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 240 (Minn.App. 2003) ("impracticable to determine . . . actual income"), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).
We defer to the district court's credibility findings and weighing of the evidence. Id.; Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 241 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).
Father argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to recognize Parental Alienation Syndrome. But father presented no evidence at trial regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome. A party may not complain of a ruling on appeal when the party did not provide the district court with the evidence needed to rule in the party's favor. Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).
We defer to the district court's credibility determinations. Eisenchenk v. Eisenchenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 241 (Minn.App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).
Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 243 (Minn.App. 2003), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).
"On appeal, a party cannot complain about a district court's failure to rule in h[is] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question." Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003). Reuben contends that the district court did not take various factors into account.
Given husband's failure to present direct evidence of his net income, he cannot complain that the district court did not make a finding on net income. See Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003) ("On appeal, a party cannot complain about a district court's failure to rule in her favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question."), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003); see also Hesse v. Hesse, 778 N.W.2d 98, 104 (Minn. App. 2009) (finding no abuse of discretion where the district court declined to make findings on the parties' expenses in child-support case when nonmoving party failed to submit her expenses to the court).
Thus, the CSM did not err by refusing to apply the rebuttable presumption in section 518A39, subdivision 2(b)(1).See Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003) (stating that "a party cannot complain about a district court's failure to rule in [that party's] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question"), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).
The district court implicitly credited father's testimony that the value of the remaining property was $100,000, and mother never testified to or submitted any evidence to support a different valuation. See Eisenschenk v. Eisenschenk, 668 N.W.2d 235, 243 (Minn. App. 2003) (stating that "a party cannot complain about a district court's failure to rule in [her] favor when one of the reasons it did not do so is because that party failed to provide the district court with the evidence that would allow the district court to fully address the question"), review denied (Minn. Nov. 25, 2003).