Rosebrough v. Caldwell

7 Citing cases

  1. Yarbrough v. Mitchell

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

    Rosebrough v. Caldwell, No. W2018-01168-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 6898218, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019) (quoting In re S.S.-G., No. M2015-00055-COA-R3-PT, 2015 WL 7259499, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015)).

  2. Friedsam v. Krisle

    No. M2021-00530-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2022)   Cited 4 times
    Remanding because the trial court's order was "virtually devoid of findings" as to "a central issue in the case"

    But recounting the proof presented is not the same as making the findings of fact required to adjudicate an issue. Cf. Rosebrough v. Caldwell, No. W2018-01168-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 6898218, at*4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019) (quoting In re S.S.-G., No. M2015-00055-COA-R3-PT, 2015 WL 7259499, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015) ("'[A] lengthy summary of the testimony adduced at the hearing and a few credibility observations' without further indicating which testimony or other evidence the trial court relied upon in making its decision is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of making specific findings of fact.")). Without these findings, we are left to guess whether the trial court considered Father's conduct to amount to abuse.

  3. Woody v. Woody

    No. E2020-01200-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2022)   Cited 4 times
    Soldiering on and stating that "we are mindful that this case has been ongoing for several years at this point, and proceeding to the merits will afford the parties and Harper resolution"

    . See Rosebrough v. Caldwell, No. W2018-01168-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 6898218, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019) (holding that an extensive trial court order was nevertheless deficient where it largely consisted of "conclusory statements regarding the evidence presented and not specific findings of fact as required"); see also In re S.S.-G., No. M2015-00055-COA-R3-PT, 2015 WL 7259499, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015) ("[T]he court must go beyond mere summation [of the evidence] by linking the evidence to its clearly stated findings of fact and conclusions of law.").

  4. Rosebrough v. Caldwell

    No. W2020-00538-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    On December 18, 2019, this Court filed its opinion in Rosebrough v. Caldwell, No. W2018-01168-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 6898218 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019) (Rosebrough I "). In Rosebrough I, Mother raised two issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred when it found that Mother had not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant altering the primary residential parent designation; and (2) whether the trial court erred in finding that, even if there was a material change in circumstances, it was in the Child's best interest that Father remain the primary residential parent.

  5. Gaby v. Gaby

    No. E2020-00790-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury, the court shall find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law." Although we concede that "[t]he absence of an explicit discussion of each [statutory best interest] factor" is not error, in and of itself, Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703, 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), "[a] trial 'court must go beyond mere summation by linking the evidence to its clearly stated findings of fact and conclusions of law, '" Lucy v. Lucy, No. W2020-01275-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 2579763, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2021) (quoting Rosebrough v. Caldwell, No. W2018-01168-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 6898218, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019); In re S.S.-G., No. M2015-00055-COA-R3-PT, 2015 WL 7259499, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015)). Furthermore, a trial court's "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. Green v. Green

    No. W2019-01416-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2021)   Cited 5 times

    A trial "'court must go beyond mere summation by linking the evidence to its clearly stated findings of fact and conclusions of law.'" Rosebrough v. Caldwell, No. W2018-01168-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 6898218, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019) (quoting In re S.S.-G., No. M2015-00055-COA-R3-PT, 2015 WL 7259499, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015)). "'Without such findings and conclusions, this [C]ourt is left to wonder on what basis the [trial] court reached its ultimate decision."

  7. State ex rel. Moody v. Roker

    No. W2019-01464-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Even "'a lengthy summary of the testimony adduced at the hearing and a few credibility observations' without further indicating which testimony or other evidence the trial court relied upon in making its decision is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of making specific findings of fact." Rosebrough v. Caldwell, No. W2018-01168-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 6898218, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019) (quoting In re S.S.-G., No. M2015-00055-COA-R3-PT, 2015 WL 7259499, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015)). A trial "'court must go beyond mere summation by linking the evidence to its clearly stated findings of fact and conclusions of law.'"