Long v. Long

6 Citing cases

  1. Hill v. Hill

    682 S.W.3d 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 5 times
    In Hill, the trial court assigned a value to a wife's retirement account "at the time of separation," but the final order regarding the disposition of marital property was not entered until twenty-two months after the divorce proceedings.

    Barnes v. Barnes, No. M2011-01824-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5266382, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2012). See also Long v. Long, No. E2018-01868-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 3986281, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2019); Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). Despite the absence of a "bright-line test by which to assess the sufficiency of factual findings, โ€ฆ โ€˜the findings of fact must include as much of the subsidiary facts as is necessary to disclose to the reviewing court the steps by which the trial court reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual issue.โ€™"

  2. Hill v. Hill

    No. E2021-00399-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May. 26, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Barnes v. Barnes, No. M2011-01824-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5266382, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2012). See also Long v. Long, No. E2018-01868-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 3986281, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2019); Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). Despite the absence of a "bright-line test by which to assess the sufficiency of factual findings, . . . 'the findings of fact must include as much of the subsidiary facts as is necessary to disclose to the reviewing court the steps by which the trial court reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual issue.'" Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 35 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting 9C Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure ยง 2579, at 328 (3d ed. 2005)).

  3. Long v. Long

    642 S.W.3d 803 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 11 times
    Indicating the issue is often considered without an argument having been raised before the trial court

    The plaintiff, Carolyn Diane Long ("Wife"), and the defendant, Steven Lawrence Long ("Husband"), have been involved in this action since Wife filed a complaint for divorce in October 2014 in the Cumberland County Probate and Family Court ("trial court"). This matter initially came before this Court on appeal in Long v. Long , No. E2018-01868-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 3986281 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2019) (" Long I "). In Long I , this Court vacated the trial court's division of marital property and remanded "with instructions to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01," specifically as to the trial court's classification of Wife's partnership interest in a partnership entity known as Pioneer Properties, the values of specific properties, and the trial court's overall distribution of marital property.

  4. Howard v. Beasley

    No. W2019-01972-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    A trial court must do more than simply state its decision. Long v. Long, No. E2018-01868-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 3986281, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2019); Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018); Barnes v. Barnes, No. M2011-01824-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5266382, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2012). Although there is no single test to determine whether a trial court has complied with Rule 52.01, "the general rule is that 'the findings of fact must include as much of the subsidiary facts as is necessary to disclose to the reviewing court the steps by which the trial court reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual issue.'"

  5. Leonard v. Leonard

    No. W2018-02235-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2020)   Cited 3 times
    In Leonard, this Court vacated the trial court's order dividing the marital estate and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions for the trial court to "make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated ยง 36-4-121(c) and Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01." Id. at *4.

    "Simply stating the trial court's decision, without more, does not fulfill" the requirements of Rule 52.01. Barnes v. Barnes, No. M2011-01824-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5266382, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2012). See also Long v. Long, No. E2018-01868-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 3986281, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2019); Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). Despite the absence of a "bright-line test by which to assess the sufficiency of factual findings, . . . 'the findings of fact must include as much of the subsidiary facts as is necessary to disclose to the reviewing court the steps by which the trial court reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual issue.'"

  6. Dalili v. Dalili

    No. E2019-00371-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Such findings and conclusions are required "irrespective of whether a party specifically requests them." Long v. Long, No. E2018-01868-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 3986281, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2019). This Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of such findings "within the specific context of addressing the classification, valuation, and division of a marital estate."