Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of appeal” and remanding for the trial court to make factual findings as to its basis for the dismissal); Rogers, 262 Ga. App. at 857 (1) (vacating a trial court’s dismissal of an appeal and remanding the case when “[t]he trial court simply granted the motion without elaboration and failed to make the necessary findings as to whether the delay was unreasonable, inexcusable, and caused by [the appellant]”); Wood v. Notte, 238 Ga. App. 748, 749 (1) (519 SE2d 923) (1999) (reversing the trial court’s dismissal order and remanding the case for the trial court to make factual findings when the order “merely granted the motion to dismiss” without making findings as to the reasonableness and excusability of the delay as well as on the issue of causation). 13 See Mitchell, 285 Ga. at 577 (2) (<HOLDING>); Cooper v. State, 235 Ga. App. 66, 67 (2) (508 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that ajlthough ocga  5648 c sets forth the conditions upon which the trial court may dismiss an appeal for delay it does not by its terms require the court to make a formal recitation of those conditions in its order and affirming a trial courts dismissal order which found that the delay was unreasonable but had no express finding that the delay was inexcusable punctuation omitted (B) holding that the trial court made sufficient findings of fact to support its dismissal of an appeal when the order set forth the circumstances surrounding the appealing partys 16month delay in paying court costs and the appellee had moved to dismiss the appeal based on an inexcusable delay caused by the appellants failure to pay costs (C) holding that a partys explanation that the delay in paying costs was caused by a desire to avoid seeking public assistance in payment did not rebut inference (D) holding that evidence that a partys delay in paying costs was caused by a miscommunication was not sufficient to rebut inference (E) holding that trial court made sufficient findings of fact when it dismissed appeal
Output (English): holding that a partys explanation that the delay in paying costs was caused by a desire to avoid seeking public assistance in payment did not rebut inference