§52.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§52.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

This section discusses significant authorities involving CR 52.

(1) When findings and conclusions are required

The trial court is not obligated to make findings of fact on every contention of the parties. Rather, it is required to make findings sufficient to inform the appellate court, on material issues, what was decided by the trial court and the manner in which it was decided. Daughtry v. Jet Aeration Co.,91 Wn.2d 704, 707, 592 P.2d 631 (1979); Noble v.A&R Envtl. Servs. LLC,140 Wn.App. 29, 36, 164 P.3d 519 (2007); City ofTacoma v. Fiberchem, Inc.,44 Wn.App. 538, 541, 722 P.2d 1357, review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1008 (1986).

Findings must be sufficiently specific to permit meaningful review. They should indicate the factual bases for the ultimate conclusions. In re LaBelle,107 Wn.2d 196, 218-19, 728 P.2d 138 (1986).

A38-page oral opinion granting a motion to dismiss under CR 11(b)(3) and a subsequent hearing wherein proposed findings and conclusions were ruled "substantially correct" do not satisfy CR 52. DGHI Enters, v. Pac. Cities, Inc.,137 Wn.2d 933,943-51,977P.2d1231 (1999). Although RCW 4.44.070 permits a party to present findings orally, the court's findings must be written. Id. at 945.

Findings and conclusions are required both in granting and in refusing temporary injunctions. 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, 517P.2d985 (1974).

Findings and conclusions are essential in a mandamus action. S & D Paving Co. v. Douglas County,71 Wn.2d 322, 324, 428P.2d720 (1967); Stegmeier v. City of Everett,21 Wn.App. 290, 295 n.2, 584P.2d488 (1978).

The absence of formal findings and conclusions in a memorandum opinion is not fatal if the appellate court can discern what questions the trial court decided and the theory for the decision. Backlund v. Univ. of Wash.,137 Wn.2d 651,656 n. 1,975P.2d950 (1999) (appellate court did not remand for findings of fact even though trial court did not include formal findings of fact and conclusions of law in its memorandum decision as required by CR 52(a)(4)).

Failure to make findings is not fatal if the appellate court's review of the record substantially eliminates all reasonable doubts as to the basis of the trial court's decision. Compare TEC Eng'g Corp. v. BudgetMolders Supply, Inc.,...