Cited by

(concluding that findings were inadequate when “the [district] court preface[d] its statements with phrases such as ‘petitioner claims,’ ‘according to petitioner’s application,’ and ‘respondent asserts’” and did not affirmatively state its findings as findings of the court).

As a threshold issue, wife argues that the district court did not make “true findings of fact on the evidence” and instead “merely recited the evidence with no proper analysis.” (stating that a district court’s recitation of the parties’ factual assertions “is not making true findings” because findings “must be affirmatively stated as findings of the trial court”); n.3 (Minn. App. 2001) (citing this aspect of Dean).

Commitment of Spicer, d 803, 810 (Minn. App. 2014); (making the same point in a family-law appeal).

(noting that statements prefaced with phrases such as “petitioner claims,” “according to petitioner’s application,” and “responde nt asserts” are not proper findings); see In re Civ.

Father cites Dean v. Pelton , for the proposition that when a district court prefaces a statement in an order with “claims,” “according to,” or “a sserts,” the statement is nothing more than a recitation of the parties’ claims and cannot be interpreted as binding.

Findings of fact “must be affirmatively stated.” ; accord Hassing v. Lancaster , (reversing and remanding custody-modification decision based on child endangerment and citing Dean, d at 764, for the proposition that “the trial court’s recitation of what others have observed is not a finding o

(stating that a district court’s recitation of the parties’ assertions “is not making true findings” because findings of fact “must be affirmatively stated as findings of the trial court”); n.3 (Minn. App. 2001) (citing this aspect of Dean).

28, 1994); (stating that findings “must be affirmatively stated as findings of the trial court” and that “the trial court is not making true findings [by] merely reciting the parties’ claims”).

(stating that a recitation of the parties’ assertions “may be helpful in understanding what the trial court considered” but that findings must be “affirmatively stated as findings of the trial court”); (applying Dean).

(“Reciting the parties’ claims may be helpful in understanding what the trial court considered in making its findings; however, the findings themselves must be affirmatively stated as findings of the trial court.”).

(concluding that the district court was “not making true findings” by merely repeating the parties’ arguments).

Appellant argues that those findings “are just a recitation of the parties’ claims,” the district court “never resolved the matter of how much time the minor child spent with father and his grandparents versus mother and her family,” and “[t]he court made no finding on the nature or quality of the child’s relationship with the paternal grandparents.” (stating that merely reciting the parties’ assertions does not constitute making findings of fact).

This court previously has stated that findings beginning with phrases such as “‘petitioner claims,’ ‘according to petitioner’s application,’ and ‘respondent asserts,’” are not “true findings.”

(stating that merely reciting parties’ claims does not constitute making findings of fact).

(noting that “[s]ince it could not de *780 termine the parties’ living expenses at the time of dissolution, the trial court had insufficient information to determine whether the needs of the parties had substantially increased or decreased making the terms of the original support order unfair”).

(stating district court's recitation of parties' claims "is not making true findings” because findings "must be affirmatively stated as findings of the trial court”).

( (Huspeni, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part) ).