(1) The district court abused its discretion in determining that deficiencies in expert disclosure were not harmless.
(2) Appellant’s arguments regarding property determinations were either inadequately briefed or unpreserved.
(3) The district court abused its discretion by considering certain living expenses as amounts available for payment of attorney fees.
(4) No appearance of bias existed where judge had attorney-client relationship with lawyer belonging to same firm as counsel for opposing party.