More Categories

Rule 52 – Findings by the Court

May 13, 2021 | Civil Procedure, Mississippi

(a) Effect. In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury the court may, and shall upon the request of any party to the suit or when required by these rules, find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and judgment shall be entered accordingly.
(b) Amendment. Upon motion of a party made filed not later than ten days after entry of judgment or entry of findings and conclusions, or upon its own initiative during the same ten-day period, the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may be made with accompany a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. When findings of fact are made in actions tried by the court without a jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings may thereafter be raised regardless of whether the party raising the question has made in court an objection to such findings or has made filed a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment or a motion for a new trial.

Miss. R. Civ. P. 52

Amended effective,July 1, 1997.

Advisory Committee Historical Note

Effective July 1, 1997, Rule 52(b) was amended to clarify that a motion to amend the trial court’s findings must be filed not later that ten days after entry of judgment. _____ So. 2d _____ (West Miss. Cases).

[Adopted effective July 1, 1997.]

Advisory Committee Notes

Rule 52(a) requires a trial court, in cases tried without a jury, to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law when such findings and conclusions are requested by a party or when such findings and conclusions are required by the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. In the absence of a party’s request for such findings and conclusions or a rule requiring such findings and conclusions, the trial court “may” make such findings and conclusions. See Gulf Coast Research Laboratory v. Amaraneni, 722 So. 2d 530, 534-35 (Miss. 1998). The principal purpose of the rule is to provide the appellate court with a record regarding what the trial court did-the facts it found and the law it applied, in part so that the appellate court can refrain from deciding issues of fact and issues that were not decided by the trial court. Tricon Metals & Services, Inc. v. Topp, 516 So. 2d 236, 239 (Miss. 1987). “In cases of any significant complexity the word ‘may’ in Rule 52(a) should be construed to read ‘generally should.’ In other words, in cases of any complexity, tried upon the facts without a jury, the Court generally should find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law thereon.” Id. In contested complex cases, a trial court’s “failure to make findings of ultimate fact and conclusions of law will generally be regarded as an abuse of discretion.” Id. “[F]indings of fact by the chancellor, together with the legal conclusions drawn from those findings, are required [in cases involving the division of marital assets].” Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 929 (Miss. 1994).

General findings of fact and conclusions of law may technically comply with Rule 52 ‘s requirements despite a party’s request for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Lowery v. Lowery, 657 So. 2d 817, 819 (Miss. 1995) (citing Century 21 Deep South Prop. v. Corson, 612 So. 2d 359, 367 (Miss. 1992)). If a trial court fails to make even general findings of fact and conclusions of law when specific findings of fact and conclusions of law are requested by a party, remand to the trial court may be necessary unless the evidence is so overwhelming so as to make findings unnecessary. See Lowery v. Lowery, 657 So. 2d 817, 819 (Miss. 1995).

A trial court has discretion to adopt a party’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rice Researchers, Inc. v. Hiter, 512 So. 2d 1259, 1266 (Miss. 1987). A trial court’s factual findings, even in cases where the trial court adopts verbatim a party’s proposed findings of fact, will be reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bluewater Logistics, LLC v. Williford, 55 So. 3d 148, 157 (Miss. 2011).

See also the Uniform Chancery Court Rules regarding findings by the court.

.