not support his testimony with documentary evidence. The district court then divided the property based on the evidence it deemed credible. Appellant claims that if he had understood the necessity of establishing property values for division purposes, he would have conducted independent art and property appraisals and presented additional evidence concerning tax-increment financing and loan encumbrances against some of the marital property. The district court’s rejection of appellant’s unchallenged testimony for lack of documentary support, thereby rejecting over $450,000 of presumably verifiable marital debt, underscores the danger of conducting a combined proceeding without providing clear notice of the burdens of proof. See Tasker v. Tasker, 395 N.W.2d 100, 104-05 (Minn.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Though appellant’s trial counsel might have
holding that appellate court will not remand a case to the district court for a violation of rule 50 if the district courts rationale is apparent from the record holding that the debtors valuation was a  key issue  in a reorganization and therefore even if a remand resulted in a higher valuation the plan would need to be substantially changed holding the states comment that the only witness gave uncontradicted and uncontroverted testimony establishing appellants guilt was an impermissible comment on appellants right to remain silent where appellant was the only individual capable of refuting the witnesss testimony holding that the fourth circuit has jurisdiction to review a district courts sua sponte remand order even when that remand order is styled as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the order was in fact based on the procedural insufficiency of the notice of removal holding district courts rejection of appellants uncontroverted valuation testimony compelled remand