On appeal, the district court s finding is upheld unless clearly erroneous. Minn. R. Civ. When deciding whether a finding of fact is clearly erroneous, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court s findings. Here, the district court heard testimony from the parties. The district court gave credit to her testimony, finding it was supported by the fact that Wife received custody of both children, including a special needs child, and we must defer to the district court s assessment of witness credibility.
Sufficient evidence exists to support the district court s interpretation of the stipulation.
The district court found that this is not what the parties intended, and evidence in the record reasonably supports the district court s determination. Interpretation of an ambiguous decree is a question of fact and because we view the evidence most favorably to the district court s finding, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in determining that Husband must assume the mortgage. Evidentiary Hearing Husband argues that if he must assume the mortgage upon purchase of the marital home, then the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing because it modified the stipulated decree. Contrary to Husband s assertion, however, an evidentiary hearing is not necessary because the district court merely clarified an ambiguity in the parties stipulated decree. By simply resolving an ambiguous provision, the district court did not modify the parties decree or impair their substantive rights.