Cotting v. Cotting

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when appellate court was “in the dark” regarding trial court’s basis for ruling on attorney fees, the attorney-fees award could not be properly reviewed and the case was remanded for clarification of the court’s award
• holding, when trial court did not provide factual findings in order granting fees, “[s]imply put, we are in the dark regarding the trial court’s intent, as well as the basis for its ruling, and we cannot properly review the ... fee award”
• vacating trial court’s order and remanding for further clarification because this Court was “in the dark regarding the trial court’s intent, as well as the basis for its ruling,” and we could not properly review the order
• award cannot be based on OCGA § 19-6-2 where action is for custody modification and has no contempt allegations
• appellate court “in the dark” regarding trial court’s intent and basis for ruling on attorney fees, the attorney fees award could not be properly reviewed and the case was remanded for clarification of the court’s award
• where appellate court was “in the dark” regarding trial court’s intent and basis for ruling on attorney fees, the attorney fees award could not be properly reviewed and the case was remanded for clarification of the court’s award

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).