This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat.
Respondent seeks attorney fees on appeal.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to terminate part of appellant's maintenance obligation or in making a February 1997 attorney fee award, we affirm on those issues. Because the district court misread parts of the judgment, but did not clearly err in reading other parts, we reverse in part. Because the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant an evidentiary hearing on his motion to modify custody, we remand for a hearing. The amended judgment dissolving the parties' marriage, which incorporated the parties' stipulation, gave respondent a multi-part maintenance award. Appellant argues the district court improperly altered the judgment by requiring respondent to be employed for more than a year before allowing a presumption of changed circumstances.