Whether a court has the power to impose a private fine is a question of law. A reviewing court is not bound by and need not give deference to a court's decision on a purely legal issue. Ass'n v. Minnesota Pub. In addition to the requirement of due process safeguards, we must address the propriety of the penalty provision in the context that, although the court was dealing with two different levels of spousal maintenance, it ultimately found that appellant had overpaid his obligation. We believe that even if imposition of a penalty were appropriate, it would not be appropriate in this case in view of the overpayments of maintenance.
Statutory construction is clearly a question of law and thus fully reviewable by an appellate court.
Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Bd. Appellant also argues that he is entitled to interest on the amount he has overpaid. Appellant does not cite any statute or case law that requires such interest, and our independent research has found none. Because the statute does not expressly provide for the payment of interest on overpaid maintenance, none need be awarded. Attorney fees Appellant argues that the district court erred when it denied his request for attorney fees that were incurred in securing repayment of the home equity line of credit.