For example, Rule 52(a)(2) explicitly exempts Rule 41(b) dismissals after a plaintiff’s evidence, which always require findings and conclusions. There are, of course, exceptions to this default rule. Because no such request was made, the Supreme Court noted, there was not a “legal basis or practical reason for the Court of Appeals to remand the case to the trial court to make factual findings and conclusions of law.” Id. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals with a straightforward application of the rules of civil procedure: “Pursuant to Rule 52(a)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court is not required to make factual findings and conclusions of law to support its order unless requested by a party.” Taylor, 2022-NCSC-117, ¶ 8. However, in Taylor, the parties never requested that the trial court make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court of Appeals had determined that it could not “conduct a meaningful review of the trial court’s conclusions of law, and … accordingly reverse and remand the order for further findings.” Taylor v. Bank of America, N.A., 2022-NCSC-117, the Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeals decision remanding a trial court order dismissing a complaint pursuant to N.C. North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(2) states that “indings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary on decisions of any motion or order ex mero motu only when requested by a party.”Ī recent North Carolina Supreme Court decision reiterates this default rule. Allen, 2021-NCCOA-410, ¶ 22.įor Decisions on Motions, Findings and Conclusions Are Normally Only Required if a Party Requests Them However, “hen requested, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law must be sufficiently detailed to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Williams v. 587, 589 (2002).Īs discussed below, the default rule for orders on motions is that findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required unless requested. North Carolina Growers Association, Inc., 151 N.C. Without their inclusion, an appellate court may be unable to determine “whether there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and whether its conclusions of law were proper in light of such facts.” Pineda–Lopez v. Bally Total Fitness of the Mid-Atl., Inc., 370 N.C. Clear findings of fact and conclusions of law allows the reader to follow the legal reasoning behind a decision and “allow meaningful review by the appellate courts. The requirement that a trial court make both findings of fact-the determination of the relevant facts in a lawsuit-and conclusions of law-the application of the legal rule to those facts-is mandatory for judgments in bench trials. This post explores this exception-to-an-exception regarding findings and conclusions for certain dispositive motions. This is because of the trial court’s particular role in those specific proceedings and the possibility for meaningful appellate review of the trial court’s orders without the inclusion of findings and conclusions. There are some situations, however, where a trial court should not make findings of fact in an order, even if a party requests them. Orders disposing of motions, on the other hand, normally only need findings and conclusions if a party requests that the trial court make them. Trial court judgments in bench trials must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |