A claims-made insurance policy without retroactive coverage does not necessarily violate public policy or implicate the doctrine of reasonable expectations. Review by writ of certiorari is improper because the county board resolution was a legislative act, not a quasi-judicial action. The authority to apply concepts of equity to the facts of an individual situation is a quasi-judicial power, but the adoption of a policy of general applicability and future effect is a legislative action. A county board resolution directing the county assessor to combine lots affected by Department of Natural Resources shoreline regulations into one tax parcel whenever possible was a legislative act because the resolution on its face applies prospectively to all property in the county affected by DNR shoreline regulations, and nothing in the record shows that the resolution does not in fact have general applicability and future effect. Where appellants failed to include any summary, index, general description, or other identifying information that would enable the trial court to compare the claimed expenses to those allowed under respondent's advertising guidelines and the ledgers submitted by appellants are not self-explanatory and fail to provide facts proving that certain transactions were voided or reversed as claimed by appellants, the trial court did not err in determining that appellants' proffered evidence failed to prove they should pay amounts different from those established in the settlement agreement.
Voluminous materials are useful to the trier of fact only if litigants summarize the data.
Reversed and remanded. The evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that in the absence of a permanent maintenance award husband would enjoy a comfortable retirement, receiving a monthly income that exceeded his needs, while wife would be forced to continue to work full time to get by. It was clearly within the equitable discretion of the trial court to allow wife to receive a reasonable amount in excess of her present monthly expenses in order to allow her to save for retirement. The district court did not abuse its broad discretion in providing that maintenance will not terminate automatically upon respondent's remarriage where the parties had a lengthy marriage, they enjoyed a high standard of living, and respondent has an anticipated need for further education. The record also shows that the parties moved frequently during the marriage, interrupting respondent's career to facilitate appellant's education.