Are findings of fact and conclusions of law required in Rule 12 orders? Technically, they are not. Practically, however, the Court of Appeals strongly encourages them.
We begin with the technical. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 states as follows:
In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury, the court shall find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment. The findings of a master, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the court. If an opinion or memorandum of decision is filed, it will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law appear therein. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided in Rules 41.02 and 65.04(6).
(Emphasis added.)
So, the rules of civil procedure permit a trial judge to simply say that the Rule 12 motion is “granted” or “denied” without saying more.
But the Court of Appeals wants more. Check out this footnote in this recent opinion.
We note that even though Rule 52.01 “exempts a trial court from having to state its findings of fact and conclusions of law on decisions of Rule 12 motions, ‘it is most often a good idea for the court to include its findings in its order regardless of whether the lack thereof constitutes error.’” City of Morristown v. Ball, No. E2020-01567-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 4449237, at *8 n.8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2021) (quoting PNC Multifamily Cap. Institutional Fund XXVI Ltd. P’ship v. Mabry, 402 S.W.3d 654, 660 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012)). “[A] trial court’s failure to provide any legal basis for its dismissal o[n] a Rule 12.02 motion to dismiss can hamper this Court’s ability to review the dismissal on appeal.” Crenshaw v. Kado, No. E2020-00282-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 2473820, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 17, 2021); see, e.g., Buckingham v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., No. E2020-01541-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 2156445, at *2-3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 27, 2021) (vacating a Rule 12 order of dismissal that did not provide any reasoning when this Court was unable to ascertain the basis of the trial court’s ruling).
In The Matter of the Conservatorship of Mary Ann Tapp / In Re Mary Ann Tapp Living Trust Dated August 10, 2015, No. W2021-00718-COA-R3-CV, at *8-9 fn.2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2023).
So, if there is any reasonably likelihood of an appeal from a dismissal under Rule 12, it probably makes sense to state the legal basis for the dismissal in the order even though Rule 52.01 doesn’t really require it.