Pandey v. Shrivastava

64 Citing cases

  1. Flynn v. Stephenson

    No. E2019-00095-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2019)   Cited 11 times

    Brainerd, No. M2015-00362-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 6996365, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Nov. 30, 2016) (remanding where "[t]he court's rulings do not refer to the statutory best interest factors at all"); Thompson v. Thompson, No. M2014-02124-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 9594647, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Dec. 30, 2015); Gooding v. Gooding, 477 S.W.3d 774, 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015); In re Noah J., No. W2014-01778-COA-R3-JV, 2015 WL 1332665, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Mar. 23, 2015) ("The importance of Rule 52.01 findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot be underscored enough, particularly in a fact-intensive matter such as a case in which the parenting arrangement is at issue."); Olson v. Beck, No. M2013-02560-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 899381, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Feb. 27, 2015); Howell v. Howell, No. M2013-02260-R3-CV, 2014 WL 7466654, at *7-8 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Dec. 30, 2014); Ward v. Ward, No. M2012-01184-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 3198157, at *14-15 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed June 20, 2013); Pandey v. Shrivastava, No. W2012-00059-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 657799, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Feb. 22, 2013); In re Connor S.L., No. W2012-00587-COA-R3-JV, 2012 WL 5462839, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Nov. 8, 2012); Barnes v. Barnes, No. M2011-01824-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5266382, at *7-8 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Oct. 24, 2012). All fourteen of the above-cited cases were decided in the specific context of creating an initial residential parenting schedule in a parenting plan.

  2. Dezevallos v. Terry Burns Ins. Agency, LLC

    No. M2017-02030-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2018)

    When a trial court's findings fail to satisfy Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01, our usual course is to vacate the trial court's judgment and remand the case with directions to issue sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. See, e.g., Pandey v.Shrivastava, No. W2012-00059-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 657799, at *5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2013); Hardin, 2012 WL 6727533, at *5-6; In re Connor S.L., No. W2012-00587-COA-R3-JV, 2012 WL 5462839, at *4-5, *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2012); Simpson v. Fowler, No. W2011-02112-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 3675321, *4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2012). However, in certain cases, this Court may choose to remedy the trial court's deficient factual findings by conducting a de novo review of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies. See, e.g., Ward v. Ward, No. M2012-01184-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 3198157, at *15 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2013); see also Kendrick v. Shoemake, 90 S.W.3d 566, 570 (Tenn. 2002) (applying de novo review when the trial court's factual findings were insufficient); Brooks v. Brooks, 992 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Tenn.

  3. Douglas v. Caruthers & Assocs., Inc.

    No. W2013-02676-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Remanding to the trial court for entry of findings of fact in compliance with Rule 52.01 when the case presented complicated questions of law that required a fact-intensive inquiry and the trial court's decision was not readily ascertainable

    Hanson v. J.C. Hobbs Co., Inc., No. W2011-02523-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5873582, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov.21, 2012) (quoting Simpson v. Fowler, No. W2011-02112-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 3675321, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2012)).Pandey v. Shrivastava, No. W2012-00059-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 657799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2013). The circumstances outlined above, however, are not present in this case.

  4. Solima v. Solima

    No. M2013-01074-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2015)   Cited 4 times

    Although the court need not list every applicable statutory factor and an accompanying conclusion, the trial court is required to "consider all the applicable factors."See Pandey v. Shrivastava, No. W2012-00059-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 657799, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2013). Moreover, Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 requires trial courts to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, even if neither party requests them. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01; see, e.g., Ward v. Ward, No. M2012-01184-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 3198157, at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2013).

  5. Lovlace v. Copley

    418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013)   Cited 327 times
    Holding that an adequate ruling is one that "disclose to the reviewing court the steps by which the trial court reached its ultimate conclusion"

    One remedy appellate courts typically apply when a trial court's factual findings fail to satisfy the Rule 52.01 requirement is to remand the case to the trial court with directions to issue sufficient findings and conclusions. See, e.g., Pandey v. Shrivastava, No. W2012–00059–COA–R3–CV, 2013 WL 657799, at *5–6 (Tenn.Ct.App. Feb. 22, 2013); Hardin, 2012 WL 6727533, at *5–6;In re Connor S.L., No. W2012–00587–COA–R3–JV, 2012 WL 5462839, at *4–5, *7 (Tenn.Ct.App. Nov. 8, 2012); Simpson v. Fowler, No. W2011–02112–COA–R3–CV, 2012 WL 3675321, *4–5 (Tenn.Ct.App. Aug. 28, 2012). Alternatively, an appellate court may choose to remedy the trial court's deficient factual findings by conducting a de novo review of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

  6. Moore v. Heilbrunn

    No. M2023-00327-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2024)

    This Court has previously held that a custody determination on behalf of a child is a "fact-intensive issue" that requires detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court. See Pandey v. Shrivastava, No. W2012-00059-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 657799, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2013) (concerning parental relocation) (citing Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 (requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law in bench trials)). In similar cases, this Court has vacated the judgment of the trial court where the court failed to make findings to support its rulings or where it failed to engage in a best interest analysis.

  7. State ex rel. Gutierrez v. Baggett

    No. M2022-01658-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    When a trial court's factual findings fail to comply with Rule 52.01, appellate courts are left with two options: (1) "soldier on" and conduct an independent analysis of the record; or (2) vacate the trial court's decision and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to issue sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. at *5; see also Trezevant v. Trezevant, 568 S.W.3d 595, 623 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018); Pandey v. Shrivastava, No. W2012-00059-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 657799, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2013); In re Caleb F., M2016-01584-COA-R3-JV, 2017 WL 5712992, at *6-7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2017); Hardin v. Hardin, No. W2012-00273-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 6727533, at *5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2012); In re Connor S.L., 2012 WL 5462839, at *7. Having reviewed the record to determine whether the trial court erred in determining that Mother should have sole decision-making authority over non-emergency, health care decisions

  8. Yarbrough v. Mitchell

    No. W2021-01174-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    F &M Mktg. Servs., Inc. v. Christenberry Trucking &Farm, Inc., No. E2015-00266-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 6122872, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2015) (quoting Pandey v. Shrivastava, No. W2012-00059-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 657799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2013)).

  9. Matlock v. Matlock

    No. E2022-00041-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Remanding a case with instructions to the trial court to issue an order with findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52.01

    When a trial court's findings of fact are insufficient to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01, the appellate court may either remand the action for the trial court to make sufficient findings of fact, or if the case involves a clear legal issue or the trial court's decision is readily ascertainable, the appellate court may attempt to "soldier on" by conducting a de novo review of the evidence presented to the trial court in the underlying record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies. See Lovlace, 418 S.W.3d at 36; Manning v. Manning, 474 S.W.3d 252, 260 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Pandey v. Shrivastava, No. W2012-00059-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 657799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2013) (other internal citations omitted)).

  10. In re Houston D.

    660 S.W.3d 704 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    Id. (quoting Pandey v. Shrivastava , No. W2012-00059-COA-R3-CV, 2013 WL 657799 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2013) ). When faced with this difficult problem in the past, we have made the determination to soldier on "for the sake of judicial economy," Burse v. Hicks , No. W2007-02848-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 4414718, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2008), or in order "to resolve the litigation between the parties," Hanson v. J.C. Hobbs Co., Inc. , No. W2011-02523-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5873582, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2012).