Tennessee’s appellate courts have increasingly made it clear that they need to be able to look at a trial judge’s order and see how she reached a decision in the case. Here is the most recent statement of the Court of Appeals on the purpose of findings of fact and conclusions of law – and what happens when they are incomplete:
“In bench trials, trial courts must make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support their rulings.” Hardin v. Hardin, No. W2012-00273-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 6727533, at * 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2012). Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n 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.”4 Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. “Simply stating the trial court’s decision, without more, does not fulfill this mandate.” Barnes v. Barnes, No. M2011-01824-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 5266382, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2012). This Court has previously held that “the General Assembly’s decision to require findings of fact and conclusions of law is ‘not a mere technicality.’” Hardin, 2012 WL 6727533, at *3 (quoting In re K.H., No. W2008-01144-COA-R3-PT, 2009 WL 1362314, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 15, 2009)). “Findings and conclusions serve the important purposes of facilitating appellate review and promoting the just and speedy resolution of appeals.” In re Noah J., No. W2014-01778-COA-R3-JV, 2015 WL 1332665, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2015) (citing Hardin, 2012 WL 6727533, at *3). In the absence of the necessary findings and conclusions, “this [C]ourt is left to wonder on what basis the court reached its ultimate decision.” In re K.H., 2009 WL 1362314, at *8.
Pogue v. Simms, No. M2022-01095-COA-R3-JV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2023).
The appellate court was not happy with the trial judge’s ruling in this case:
we conclude that the central issue here revolves around the manner in which the court awarded parenting time in light of the statutory language contained in section 36-6-106(a). Upon reviewing the record in conjunction with the trial court’s order, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain the reasoning behind the trial court’s award of parenting time to the parties, specifically its failure to maximize Father’s parenting time with Child. Indeed, as noted earlier, the trial court’s order contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding its decision to award Mother 229 days and Father only 136 days of parenting time, and we find no indication in this record that the trial court’s disposition was made in consideration of the legislative intent of section 36-6-106(a)’s requirement that courts are to fashion custody arrangements to maximize a parent’s time with their child in accordance with the child’s best interests.
Id. at p. 4.
What do you do if you have concerns that the trial judge’s order is a little light on factual findings and conclusions of law? You can move to alter and amend and ask the trial judge to flush out his or her findings, including with your motion proposed findings of fact (consistent with the evidence in the case) and conclusions of law.