Cited by

d 583, 590 (Minn. App. 1992), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Consistent with these concerns, more than thirty years ago we too began to “strongly caution that wholesale adoption of one party’s findings and conclusions raises the question of whether the trial court independently evaluated each party’s testimony and evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

2, 2010) ( rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

“[T]he verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed findings and conclusions of law is not reversible error per se.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

12 A. Adoption of Proposed Findings “[V]erbatim adoption of a party ’s proposed findings and conclusions of law is not reversible error per se.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

(cautioning district courts not to adopt one party’s findings and conclusions “wholesale”), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

(stating that posttrial motions for amended findings are encouraged even when they are not mandatory).

See, e. g., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

The “wholesale adoption of one party’s findings and conclusions raises the question of whether the trial court independently evaluated each party’s testimony and evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

On review of the district court’s division of debt, this court reviews the debt division for an abuse of discretion and must affirm “if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle, even though this court may have taken a different approach.” rev. denied.

” Bliss v. Bliss , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

The “wholesale adoption” of proposed findings could “raise[] the question of whether the trial court independently evaluated each party’ s testimony and evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

are always detailed, specific and sufficient enough to enable meaningful review.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

3 In support of this argument, rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

ourt of Appeals finds this effort to be lacking and refers the matter back, it should be clear where the fault lies.” But the district court is ultimately responsible for “assur[ing] that findings and conclusions —whether they be the court’s alone, one or the other party’s, or a combination—are always detailed, specific, and sufficient enou gh to enable meaningful review.” Bliss v. Bliss , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

D E C I S I O N “The [district] court must scrupulously assure that findings and conclusions — whether they be the court ’s alone, one or the other party ’s, or a combination—are always detailed, specific and sufficient enough to enable meanin gful review by this court.” review denied (Minn. Feb.

See Bliss v. Bliss , (stating that wholesale adoption of proposed findings raises questions of whether district court independently evaluated testimony and evidence), review denied (Minn. Feb.

See generally Bliss v. Bliss , n.6 (Minn. App. 1992) (stating that “a party who submits proposed findings and conclusions should also conscientiously review and revise this document prior to submission to the trial court” to ensure that the proposed documents are sufficiently detailed), review denied (Minn. Feb.

When asked at oral argument if appellant could provide this court with one case that s upported his position, review denied (Minn. Feb.

review denied (Minn. Feb.

A district court’s decision dividing marital debt “must be affirmed if it has an acceptable basis in fact and principle, even though this court may have taken a different approach.” review denied (Minn. Feb.

(remanding spousal -maintenance calculation to the district court where the court failed to “perform[] the analyses and modifications necessary to reach a figure that it deemed reasonable”), review denied (Minn. Feb.

This court has stated that, while “the verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed findings and conclusions of law is not reversible error per se,” the “wholesale adoption of one party’s findings and conclu sions raises the question of whether the [district] court independently evaluated each party’s testimony and evidence.” review denied (Minn. Feb.

Finally, Dahir is correct that this court has cautioned that “wholesale adoption of one party’s findings and conclusions raises th e question of whether the [district] court independently evaluated each party’s testimony and evidence.” d 583, 590 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Feb.

“The [district] court is accorded broad discretion in the division of debt; on review, the [district] court’s decision must be affirmed if it has an acceptab le basis in fact and principle, even though this court may have taken a different approach.” review denied (Minn. Feb.

We have held that a district court does not abuse its discretion by giving one party discretion to modify the visitation schedule in order to provide “a reasonable degree of flexibility to permit the parties to respond to special events.” (stating that a district 6 court did not err by allowing father to modify the visitation schedule so long as mother was notified), review denied (Minn. Feb.

We will also remand to the district 8 court for appropriate findings where the district court rejects a calculation made by a party but does not “perform[] the analyses and modifications necessary to reach a figure that it deem[s] reasonable.” review denied (Minn. Feb.

review denied (Minn. May.

Although “wholesale adoption of one party’s findings and conclusions raises the question of whether the [district] court independently evaluated each party’s testimony and evidence,” review denied (Minn. Feb.

review denied (Minn. Feb.

review denied (Minn. Feb.

review denied (Minn. Feb.

review denied (Minn. Feb.

The findings and conclusions of a district court must be “detailed, specific and sufficient enough to enable meaningful review by this court.” (MinnApp.

review denied (Minn. Feb.