Regular readers of opinions from our Court of Appeals know that it is becoming increasingly insistent that trial judges comply with Tenn. R. Civ. Pro. 52.01, which provides that a trial court “shall find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.” The mandate do to so has been the law since July, 2009.
Yarbrough v. Mitchell, No. W2021-01174-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2023) (memorandum opinion) is the most recent example. The trial judge ruled for the plaintiff on a summary judgment motion in a breach of contract case. The Court of Appeals remanded because of “shortcomings” in the trial judge’s order. The appellate court explained that
“[f]or its factual underpinnings, the trial court primarily recites the testimony of the parties, making only a singular statement of credibility. This is simply not the same as making findings of fact. Without linking the testimony to specific, relevant factual findings in some way, the trial court merely summarizes the trial proceedings instead of explaining its decision.” As this appears to be a classic case of “she said, he said,” where Appellee claims there was an oral contract and Appellant denies any contract between the parties, a lack of factual findings deeply undercuts our ability to evaluate the trial court’s reasoning. In particular, the trial court failed to cite any authority to establish the elements of breach of contract or, in the alternative, unjust enrichment, from which we could discern the rationale behind its holding that these claims had been proven. Additional findings would be especially useful here where the trial court found in favor of Appellee on two seemingly contradictory theories—breach of contract and unjust enrichment. While the invocation of
alternative theories even up to the time of judgment does not necessarily create reversible error, it would be helpful to understand the trial court’s reasoning in finding in favor of
Appellee as to both theories.
Id. at 7 (citations omitted).
The Court was also critical of the lack of specific findings on the affirmative defenses of statute of limitations and gift and concluded by saying as follows:
In sum, the trial court’s final order fails to provide sufficient factual findings and legal conclusions as required by Rule 52.01. In these circumstances, we have held that the most appropriate remedy is the vacating of the trial court’s judgment. Moreover, the trial court’s reasoning is not “readily ascertainable” here and so we decline to soldier on. Thus, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court shall enter an order containing sufficient findings and conclusions so as to comply with Rule 52.01. All other issues are therefore pretermitted.
Id. at 8 (citations omitted).
There is no doubt that these continued rulings from our intermediate appellate court increases the burden on trial judges. And it increases costs on the parties, too, because many trial judges will ask the parties to draft proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
But it is beyond clear that the Court of Appeals expects not only that this work be done but that it be done is sufficient detail to make it clear to the reviewing court what the trial judge decided and how it reached that decision. Simply recounting the evidence presented is not enough: “the court must go beyond mere summation by linking the evidence to its clearly stated findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Rosebrough v. Caldwell, No. W2018-01168-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 6898218, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2019) (quoting In re S.S.-G., No. M2015-00055-COA-R3-PT, 2015 WL 7259499, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015)).” Id. at 6.