Findings of Fact Defined
Findings of fact refer to the formal results of fact-finding by an adjudicative tribunal—such as a trial court or an appellate court—in an action.
A finding of fact is a conclusion that the trier of fact—which is usually the judge in a bench trial or the jury in a jury trial—arrives at after weighing the evidence presented in the case.
Findings of fact are one of two types of determinations made after the fact-finding process in a court case, the other being conclusions of law. A finding of fact is distinguished from a conclusion of law because findings of fact only state the facts and are not interpretations of law. Consequently, conclusions of law do not engage in fact-finding but rather apply the law to the facts.
In a court case , the judge or jury will make findings of fact based on a dispute over the facts. In some cases, findings of fact are required. For instance, in numerous civil cases where a party has the right to jury trial, the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives juries the responsibility for making findings of fact when determining whether a jury trial is permitted.
If there is no dispute of facts, only the application of the law to the undisputed material facts is at issue. In such cases, the court, not the jury, makes the finding of fact.
However, if the parties disagree on the material facts of the case, the judge making the finding of fact must determine which party’s account is more plausible.
Conclusions of Law Explained
When a court has made its findings of fact, it will often go on to make conclusions of law. Here, the term is used to connote the court’s application of the law to the facts that it has found.
A large portion of a trial court’s job, as opposed to the parties, is to look at the evidence that has been presented in the case and determine which facts have been proved, and then apply the appropriate law to those findings. To assist the parties more than the court itself, a careful trial attorney may draft proposed letters of ruling, or suggested findings of fact and conclusions of law.
A court’s conclusions of law may be based on either the evidence presented or, where the facts are undisputed, the court may make legal conclusions based on the pleadings alone. In either event, the court will provide a written document that formally adopts the proposed conclusions, possibly with modifications. Generally, a court will include each finding and conclude with a statement summarizing its decisions on all disputed issues.
In many cases, a court might draft its own, unrequested conclusions of law. Decisions from a court of appeal may return a case to the trial court for further action. On remand, the trial court may enter its own conclusions of law or, if the court of appeal directed entries that it did not choose to adopt, the trial court may incorporate those entries into the final judgment.
Under the rules in most states, upon a timely request, a trial court must separately state, on its own, findings of fact and conclusions of law. If the court fails to state its findings and conclusions on its own, a party may request that the court make them. Failure to make the requested findings and conclusions constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Appellate courts cannot provide meaningful review of trial court decisions without sufficient findings and conclusions. Therefore, if a trial court denies a motion requesting findings and conclusions, the appellate court may reverse and remand the case to the trial court for entry of an order making the findings and conclusions.
Interplay Between Conclusions of Law and Findings of Fact
The relationship between findings of fact and conclusions of law can be understood as follows: findings of fact are the statements made under oath about the facts surrounding the case and conclusions of law are the way those facts are interpreted in lawyer terms. The parties, through their lawyers, present the facts of the case to the judge and the judge, after reviewing the facts, determines how the law applies to the facts and renders judgment. As the judge goes through the process of making those decisions, the judge writes down the factual findings and conclusions of law in the same document or in two separate, but related documents. In the end, the two documents, typically, take the form of a single judgment with two major sections: findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Order is important here. The judge must state the findings of fact first and only then apply the law to the stated facts in the conclusions of law section of the document. Hill v. Hill, 990 S.W.2d 51, 54 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). It shall be in the memorandum opinion format required by these rules. Id. At this time, there is no issue with the terminology within these two sections. They may be referred to as findings of fact and conclusions of law or they may be referred to as the trial court’s ruling on the general issues in the case. This aspect is largely governed by the court’s discretion and it is my experience that courts are inconsistent in the terms they use to identify the trial court’s rulings.
Many courts have held that findings of fact are not required in a divorce decree but read them into the decree or incorporate the memorandum opinion by reference. Beck v. Beck, 814 S.W.2d 745, 749 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ). By incorporating the memorandum opinion or findings of fact and conclusions of law into the decree, the court provides the appellate court with a more complete understanding of the reasons for the court’s decision and gives reviewing courts an insight into the trial court’s application of the law to the facts. If the findings and conclusions, or the memorandum opinion, are incorporated into the decree, the decree need not repeat them. Id. citing also Carpenter v. Morton, 532 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The decree is clear in the absence of an explicit reference to the memorandum opinion. Bolton v. Paisan Enters., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 312, 316 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.).
If the decree does not explicitly incorporate the findings and conclusions, appellate courts require greater detail in the decree. Beck v. Beck, 814 S.W.2d 745, 749 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ). This is largely due to the appellate courts’ desire to have, in hand, the clear reasons why the trial court ruled as it did.
Example: Breakdown of a Case
Take for instance the case of Whitley v. GM LLC, in which a specialized team of engineers from GM, Lee and Palladino, opened a separate consulting business and signed an agreement to do work for GM’s competitors. GM discovered their actions and fired them, at which point they sued GM for wrongful termination. In response, GM filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets.
The jury found in favor of the former employees on the wrongful termination claim but agreed with GM that Lee had misappropriated the company’s trade secrets through a series of emails to his new business. Afterward, Lee filed a motion to amend the ruling, and the district court denied it. So he appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which examined the findings of facts and conclusions of law made by the trial court.
The court explained that the findings of fact were "not clearly erroneous" and that the district court acted within the "range of permissible choice" when it found Lee’s post-termination emails to be misappropriation. After pursuing the discovery process, the court acknowledged that Lee’s emails were tantamount to "electronic documents, for which GM had established protection from prying eyes."
Jurors accepted GM’s argument that "either class of the defendants’ emails was work product" and "because GM had set up the protections it was entitled to enforcement." So the court ruled that there was no error.
Common Issues Determining Findings and Conclusions
Determining findings of fact and conclusions of law is not always straightforward, and courts do face common challenges in so doing. One recurring difficulty is evidentiary in nature, and occurs when courts are unable to sufficiently identify the body of evidence underlying key factual determinations. This does not always create a true problem, since findings of fact, once beady-eyed trial court judges have made them, are virtually never disturbed beady-eyed appellate courts, due deference being given to the former’s superior ability to assess a witness’ credibility. When, however, there is insufficient a body of evidence to underlie a finding, the court’s obligation to make such a finding falls prey to the appellate court’s inherent right to review the evidence. And this can be a problem if the appellate court concludes that, on the whole, the record lacks sufficient evidence to support a finding necessary to support a conclusion of law upon which a trial court’s ruling may be supported. Stated otherwise, where the finding and conclusion of law at issue are intertwined, and the record fails to evidence a sufficient body of evidence to support one, the court may be forced to invalidate the latter.
Compounding this challenge are the related problems of determining the import or purport of a given finding or conclusion of law, and assessing the reasoning of the trial court to reach such a finding or conclusion . This often arises in the context of interpreting ambiguous or imprecise language, whether in narrative or other written form. In our experience, this problem most often arises with respect to conclusions of law. In such instances, the reviewing court must make a leap of faith in determining whether the conclusions of law are implicit in the trial court’s findings of fact.
However, the most challenging of all challenges occurs when the trial court has failed to make any finding or conclusion at all. This occurs at its most rudimentary level in trials held by judges sitting without juries. As to such cases, the General Assembly has, by statute, provided that if a judge fails to make findings and conclusions when required, the appellate court may, even in civil cases, presume that the missing findings would have been against the prevailing party, and the court may deem or treat as established any fact that would have been found to exist upon proper evidence. Similarly, while no such statute exists for jury trials, appellate courts reviewing judgment by an interlocutory motion hearing court have dispensed with the need to determine the trial court’s reasoning if the reasons a) appear in the judgment itself, b) appear in the record without objection, or c) otherwise appear in the record and are wholly dispositive of the appellate issues presented.
How to Draft Findings and Conclusions
Clarity is the hallmark of a well-drafted Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law. The district court should keep in mind the guidepost of the reader’s comprehension when drafting such a document. As this court observed in In re A.W., 2007-NMCA-043, ¶ 11, 141 N.M. 429, 496, 156 P.3d 714, 718-19, "we are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that if the district court or [the children’s guardian ad litem] had drafted the judgment, that person would be eviscerated by embarrassment at the content of the document." Any court, trial or appellate, should be embarrassed by an unchoreographed production such as that in A.W. We provide below some best practice guidelines for drafting Findings. We emphasize, however, that, in the interest of judicial economy, albeit not sacrosanctity, some creativity in a Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law may be permissible.
Keep an open mind. Remember that Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are flexible instruments and do not need to follow rigid rules or formulas. Perhaps that is another reason why they are so frequently poorly drafted. In divorce cases, for example, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law may be creatively formatted by the parties and/or counsel as an operational worksheet with readily discernible oscillating columns of dollar amounts and percentage of assets with spaces for brief commentary by each party. Naturally, the Findings should link all opposing dollar amounts to an evidentiary reference in the transcript, or to the appropriate exhibit. The Findings then can be signed or agreed to by each party and their counsel so as to expedite the judicial review. The court may be able to ratify Findings drafted in this manner; indeed, the district court may wish to adopt them. In this instance, the parties have done much of the judge’s homework for him or her.
Be concise. Identify the kernel of the matter and, in a clear sentence or two, explain it. Do not burden Findings with lengthy judicial prose. Cronin v. Markham, 1969-NMSC-090, ¶ 10, 81 N.M. 711, 712, 472 P.2d 973, 977. We quote approvingly from Vice Chancellor Jacobs more recent observation in In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. S’holder Litigation, No. Civ.A. 13120-VCN, slip op. at *1-2 (Del. Ch. Jan. 4, 2008)(the "Maxim Op.")(electronic slip op. forwarded to counsel); he concluded that the "provision largely consists of gobbledygook written by someone who obviously took pride in his ability to write long sentences."
Sequence and number Findings in rough order of importance. The biggest items, such as alimony and child support, often come to the front. Histories blend with current matters; some Findings are intended to have precedence over others. The district court has a difficult task in binding all of the often conflicting Findings together into an integrated unit. Sometimes the Findings appear to be contradictory. For example, one party may allege a disparity in income but the court may make an adjustment in gross income. Many Findings may need to be certified as erroneous or void. We suggest that such Findings be identified in a dedicated section at the head of the instrument. Finally, Never use "mixed Find."
Be specific and direct in Conclusions of Law. Use short sentences and paragraphs. Do not spoil an exquisite drafting effort by plopping down extraneous conclusions or advisory footnotes. Be careful about how grammar and punctuation might cast statutory interpretation. Also, do not interpolate "to an unreasonable degree" into statutory language.
Effects on Appeal and for Higher Courts
As explained in earlier sections, findings of fact and conclusions of law are critically important to both trial and appellate courts. Appellate courts will not consider assignments of error on appeal without a record, and a reference to either error of law or findings of fact and conclusions of law in the trial court record is usually sufficient to support an assignment of error challenging the court’s decision. Appellate courts also expect to find various critical elements of law within a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. These critical elements include the elements of any law or statute at issue; specific findings by the trial court as to the facts necessary to judge the evidence against the law and application of the law to the facts; and the court’s legal conclusions based on the facts.
If such critical findings, conclusions, and application are not present, the appellate court will affirm the judgment or order despite the trial court’s failure to provide the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. This is because a statement of the law, "[i]n the absence of findings by the [trial] court, [is] insufficient to establish that the court applied the law[;]" especially if "the evidence before the trial court [is] conflicting and therefore susceptible of more than one inference." O’Block v . O’Block, 1995 WL 237315 at *2 (Ohio App. 11 Dist.).
In addition to creation of bugaboos, O’Block also illustrates a common practice in Ohio trial courts with regard to findings of fact and conclusions of law. The practice often occurs when a trial court conducts a bench trial over several days and then re-assembles with the parties’ counsel to discuss the case. The trial court may then express its opinion as to which party should win and why, and at the end of the discussion may request that counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for the court’s approval at a later date. The court might even detail the specific findings it wants included as well as the overall legal conclusion.
Although a statement as to the law may be made verbatim to which counsel then just agrees; and specific findings may be set forth word for word; Ohio appellate courts have found that the practice of "dictation" refuses the trial court’s "role as an impartial observer." A-1 Pavement LLC v. Vasilko, 2019 WL 1592115 at *2 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.). Instead, the court "impermissibly abandoned [its] role and became an advocate." Id. This is although Ohio App. R. 28(C)(2) provides that a party’s failure to object to a proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is sufficient to constitute consent to the judgment or decision in question. Id. at *3.