In considering issues in this same vein, this court, however, has noted that "[d]ecisions regarding the division of marital property are fact-specific and require consideration of many circumstances surrounding the property and the parties." Henegar v. Henegar, No. M2015-01780-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 3675145, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2016).
This principle is reflected in many other cases addressing child custody. See, e.g. , Kelly v. Kelly , 445 S.W.3d 685, 696 (Tenn. 2014) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in designating mother the primary residential parent "[i]n light of the trial court's clearly articulated findings."); Henegar v. Henegar , No. M2015-01780-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 3675145, at *90-12 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2016) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its best interest analysis, where the trial court entered detailed findings of fact "spanning 34 paragraphs[,]" such that the appellate court was able to "carefully review[ ] all of the applicable statutory factors in conjunction with" those findings); Williams v. Williams , No. W2016-01602-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 3535322, at *3-4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2017) (noting that the trial court "made extensive written findings of fact with regard to what was in the [c]hildren's best interest" and that as such, "the trial court conducted a proper best interest analysis pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106(a)"); Nelson v. Justice , No. E2017-00895-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 337040, at *22-24 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2019) (appellate court was able to conclude that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings where the trial court "made an exhaustive review of the relevant factors and found they weig
We cannot say that the trial court erred in its conclusion that Wife must remain a co-borrower on the mortgage due to the parties' financial constraints. Henegar v. Henegar , No. M2015-01780-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 3675145, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2016). Similarly, in the case at bar, the evidence preponderated in favor of the trial court's finding that Wife would be unable to refinance the mortgage on the marital residence in order to place the debt solely in her name due to her lack of employment history.
We will affirm an award of equal parenting time when the court's decision is based on a consideration of the relevant facts and the applicable statutory factors.See, e.g., Woolbright v. Woolbright, No. M2016-02420-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 934815, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2018); Howell v. Smithwick, No. E2016-00628-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 438620, at *8-9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2017); Henegar v. Henegar, No. M2015-01780-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 3675145, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2016). Mother maintains that equal parenting time is appropriate only "when there is specific, direct proof that the child's interest will be served best by dividing custody between the parents," relying on In re Emma E., No. M2008-02212-COA-R3-JV, 2010 WL 565630, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2010).
In re Andrea A.R., No. M2011-00574-COA-R3-JV, 2012 WL 397475 at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2012).Henegar v. Henegar, No. M2015-01780-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 3675145, at *15 (June 29, 2016), no appl. perm. appeal filed. The Trial Court found relative to this issue as follows: