§52.6 Analysis

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§52.6 ANALYSIS

This section analyzes CR 52 and the corresponding federal rule.

(1)Findings must be made on material issues

CR 52(a) does not identify the types of issues on which there must be findings. Under the common law, the trial court has no duty to make findings of fact on every factual issue. City of Tacoma v. Fiberchem, Inc.,44 Wn.App. 538, 541, 722 P.2d 1357, review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1008 (1986) ("The trial court is not obligated to make findings of fact on every contention of the parties."). The trial court is, however, required to make findings sufficient to inform the appellate court, on all material issues, what questions were decided by the trial court and the manner in which they were decided. Noble v. A & R Envtl. Servs., LLC,140 Wn.App. 29, 36, 164 P.3d 519 (2007) (citingFed. Signal Corp. v. Safety Factors, Inc.,125 Wn.2d 413, 422-23, 886P.2d172 (1994)).

Findings should be sufficient to indicate "the factual bases for the ultimate conclusions" on those matters that "establish the existence or nonexistence of determinative factual matters." In re LaBelle,107 Wn.2d 196, 218-19, 728P.2d138 (1986); Bowman v. Webster,42 Wn.2d 129, 134, 253P.2d934 (1953). The nature and degree of exactness required for findings depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. Noble, 140 Wn.App. at 36.

The absence of a finding of fact on a material issue is presumptively a negative finding entered against the party with the burden of proof on that issue. Eggert v. Vincent,44 Wn.App. 851, 856, 723 P.2d 527 (1986), review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1034 (1987); see Car Wash Enters, v. Kampanos,74 Wn.App. 537, 546, 874 P.2d 868 (1994). But see Douglas Nw., Inc. v. Bill O'Brien & Sons Constr, Inc.,64 Wn.App. 661, 682, 828 P.2d 565 (1992) (if a material finding is not made, it may be due to inadvertence by the lawyer preparing the findings; in absence of some indication in the record that the failure to make a specific finding was intentional, it is unrealistic to treat the absence of a finding as the equivalent of a negative).

The basis for damages and method of computation for damages may require specific findings. See Shinn v. Thrust IV, Inc.,56 Wn.App. 827, 840-41, 786 P.2d 285 (remanding for more specific findings on basis for damages and the method of computation), review denied,114 Wn.2d 1023 (1990).

(2)Conclusions of law

Conclusions of law may be defined as determinations made by a process of legal reasoning from facts in evidence. Casterline v. Roberts, 168 Wn.App. 376, 382-83, 284P.3d743 (2012). In contrast, findings of fact are determinations of whether evidence shows that something occurred or existed. Id.

Appellate courts review issues of law under the nondeferential de novo standard of review, but they review issues of fact under the deferential "substantial evidence" standard. See, e. g., Sunny side Valley Irrig. Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873, 879-80 73P.3d369 (2003); Peste v. Mason County,133 Wn.App. 456, 477, 136P.3d140 (2006), review denied,159 Wn.2d 1013 (2007). These differing standards of review ultimately reflect a division of labor between trial courts and appellate courts. Appellate courts declare the law but normally do not engage in fact finding; trial courts find facts but normally only apply the law declared by appellate courts. See, e.g., State v. Harris, 97 Wn.App. 865, 870, 989P.2d553 (1999) (noting that appellate courts specialize in reviewing questions of law), review denied, 140 Wn.2d 1017 (2000). As a practical matter, then, the trial court's designation of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law assists a reviewing court in discerning those components of the proceedings below to which it may defer and those to which it will not. On appeal, of course, the reviewing court need not defer to the trial court's labeling of a finding or conclusion. Hegwinev.LongviewFibre Co., 162Wn.2d340,353,172P.3d688 (2007) ("A finding of fact misidentified as a conclusion of law will be treated as a finding of fact.").

(3)Findings and conclusions are required in all bench trials or trials with an advisory jury

Presentation and entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law are required in all law cases tried without a jury. CR 52(a)(1); see, e.g., Lambert v. Lambert,66 Wn.2d 503, 507, 403 P.2d 664 (1965).

(4)Findings and conclusions are specifically required in some actions

CR 52, statutes, case law, and other rules identify scenarios in which findings and conclusions are required.

(a) When required under CR 52(a)(2).

CR 52(a)(2) requires findings and conclusions in the following types of actions.

Temporary or preliminary injunctions

CR 65(d) requires that the reasons for the issuance of an injunction or restraining order be stated in an order. CR 52(a)(2)(A) supplements CR 65(d), with respect to injunctions only, and requires that there also be findings and conclusions supporting an order granting a preliminary injunction. An order denying a preliminary injunction likewise must contain findings and conclusions pursuant to CR 52(a) (2)(A); cf. Knapp Shoes, Inc. v. Sylvania Shoe Mfg. Corp.,15 F.3d 1222, 1227-28 (1st Cir. 1994) (vacating preliminary injunction is equivalent to a denial and requires findings). An injunctive order containing neither findings nor conclusions will be reviewed as a matter of law. Alderwoool Assoc, v. Wash. Envt'l. Council,96 Wn.2d 230,234, 635 P.2d 108 (1981); LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes ofNev.,434 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006) (a failure to comply with requirement for findings does not require reversal unless a full understanding of the question is not possible without the aid of separate findings; reversing denial of preliminary injunction and granting preliminary injunction against copyright infringement, when the issue hinged on legal interpretation of licensing agreement), overruled in part on other grounds as stated in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,653 F.3d 976, 979-81 (9th Cir. 2011) (eliminating presumption ofirreparable injury in copyright infringement suits). An appellate court may remand an injunctive order without findings and conclusions for the entry of findings and conclusions and the required inclusion of reasons. Turner v. City of Walla Walla,10 Wn.App. 401, 405, 517 P.2d 985 (1974); Osthus v. Whitesell Corp.,639 F.3d 841, 845 (8th Cir. 2011). A slight delay between the issuance of a preliminary injunction and supporting findings need not be prejudicial. Parcel 49C Ltd. P'ship v. United States,31 F.3d 1147, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Domestic relations

In all final decisions in adoption, custody, and divorce proceedings, findings and conclusions are necessary. CR 52(a)(2)(B); see, e.g., In re Marriage ofScanlon, 109 Wn.App. 167, 174, 34 P.3d 877 (2001) (reversing modification of child support when findings did not address issue of changed circumstances supporting a modification), review denied, 147 Wn.2d 1026 (2002); Lawrence v. Lawrence,105 Wn.App. 683,20 P.3d 972 (2001) (remandingfor specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding bases for custody decision); In re Marriage ofMcDaniel,87 Wn.App. 827, 832-33, 947 P.2d 1225 (1997) (enforcing requirement for finding on reasons for deviation from minimum need standard under RCW 26.19.075(2)-(4)).

In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884, 93 P.3d 124 (2004). The Washington Supreme Court held that a trial court must consider all the statutory factors in the Child Relocation Act, RCW 26.09.405-.560. Id. at 895. In deciding if the trial court abused its discretion in failing to document the factors, the appellate court asks two questions: "[(1)] Did the trial court enter findings of fact on each factor? [(2)] If not, was substantial evidence presented on each factor, and do the trial court's findings of fact and oral articulations reflect that it considered each factor?" Id. at 896. Only with such written documentation or oral articulations can the appellate court be certain that the trial court properly considered the interests of the child and the relocating person in the context of the competing interests and circumstances requiredby the Child Relocation Act. Id.

Other

A statute, court rule, or local rule may require findings and conclusions in other types of decisions. See CR 52(a)(2)(C); see also, e.g., Snohomish County LR 52(1); City of Seattle v. May, 171 Wn.2d 847, 862, 256P.3d1161 (2011) (stating that a permanent protection order under RCW 26.50.060 requires a finding that the respondent is likely to resume acts of domestic violence against petitioner); Kucera v. State Dep't ofTransp., 140 Wn.2d 200, 217-25, 995P.2d63 (2000) (holding trial court abused its discretion by granting an injunction under State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) without a finding of causation and without balancing the relative interests of the parties and public).

Practice Tip: Always consult the local rules, websites, and any materials that otherwise contain a description of a particular judge's preference regarding findings and conclusions. It is not uncommon for the judge to instruct one party to prepare the findings and conclusions. Such a direction should not deter counsel for the opposing party from preparing a separate set, keeping in mind the necessity of preserving the record.

(b)Defendant's motion after plaintiff rests

CR 41(b)(3) requires that if the court renders "judgment on the merits" against the plaintiff upon defendant's motion after plaintiff rests, then the court must make findings pursuant to CR 52(a). In re Dependency of Schermer,161 Wn.2d 927, 939, 169 P.3d 452 (2007). If the trial court renders judgment against the plaintiff, accepting plaintiff's evidence as true and ruling as a matter of law that plaintiff did not establish its case, then findings are not required. Id. The entry of findings strongly suggests the trial court weighed the evidence. Id....