The district court's finding that, while N. lived with appellant, respondent paid over half of N.'s expenses, is not against the facts in the record: it is supported by the record. Appellant's reliance on Tuma v. Tuma, 389 N.W.2d 529, 531 (Minn.App. 1986), for the proposition that contributions to a child's activities and household expenses do not satisfy a child-support obligation is misplaced. Tuma concerned a challenge to an existing support obligation made by an obligor who made "monetary contributions to the child's activities." Id. at 531.
It is settled law that monetary contributions to a child's activities and household expense do not satisfy a child support obligation. Tuma v. Tuma, 389 N.W.2d 529, 531 (Minn. App. 1986). It was improper for the district court here to deny appellant retroactive child support on the basis that respondent had been providing N.J.B. with some of his "general expenses."
Under these circumstances, we cannot say the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. See Tuma v. Tuma, 389 N.W.2d 529, 531-32 (Minn.App. 1986) (rejecting the argument that the trial court erroneously failed to reduce a child support obligation to reflect the monetary contributions associated with a liberal visitation schedule). III.