With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 518.145, subd. 2 violates a party’s right to due process by conducting the proceeding in such a way as to deny a party notice of evidentiary burdens of proof. We reverse and remand to allow the district court to consider additional property-value evidence, and, if necessary, amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Given the result reached here, we need not address appellant’s argument that the district court improperly valued and divided the property. B.Bias In posttrial motions, appellant unsuccessfully sought to remove the district court judge for bias, claiming that the findings of fact demonstrated animosity toward him. A party may remove a judge for bias upon a showing of affirmative prejudice. Minn.R.Civ.P. 63.08; see Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130, 139 (Minn.1990) (<HOLDING>). We will not reverse a district court’s

A: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants motion for change of judge where the appellant failed to demonstrate actual bias
B: holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial
C: holding a party must bring a motion demonstrating prejudice or implied or actual bias if the party failed to remove the judge before trial
D: holding that a party had failed to preserve an argument for appellate review when that party had failed to argue the issue to the trial court either at trial or in his postjudgment motion
C.