In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58; and in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action. Neither requests for findings nor objections to findings rendered are necessary for purposes of review. Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. 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 on motions under Rule 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided in these rules or other law.

Annotation I. General Consideration. Law reviews. For article, “Notes on Proposed Amendments to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure”, see 27 Dicta 165 (1950). For article, “Amendments to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure”, see 28 Dicta 242 (1951). For article, “Trials: Rules 38-53 “, see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 571 (1951). For article, “The Applicability of the Rules of Evidence in Non-Jury Trials”, see 24 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 480 (1952). For article, “One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals”, see 37 Dicta 21 (1960). For article, “One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals”, see 39 Dicta 133 (1962). For article, “Post-Trial Motions in the Civil Case: An Appellate Perspective”, see 32 Colo. Law. 71 (November 2003). This rule is applicable to judgments in custody proceedings. In Jaramillo, 37 Colo. App. 171, 543 P.2d 1281 (1975). Finding that “cost-plus” contract had been made is necessarily against the claim that contract was for a fixed sum less the cost of materials. Johnson v. Neel, 123 Colo. 377, 229 P.2d 939 (1951). No findings of fact and conclusions of law were required where motion for costs and damages was not a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 41(b). City & County of Denver v. Ameritrust, 832 P.2d 1054 (Colo. App. 1992). Applied in People in Interest of G.A.T., 183 Colo. 111, 515 P.2d 104 (1973); Deas v. Cronin, 190 Colo. 177, 544 P.2d 991 (1976); Poor v. District Court, 190 Colo. 433, 549 P.2d 756 (1976); People in Interest of A.A.T., 191 Colo. 494, 554 P.2d 302 (1976); In re Wolfert, 42 Colo. App. 433, 598 P.2d 524 (1979); People ex rel. MacFarlane v. Delaware Corp., 626 P.2d 1144 (Colo. App. 1980); In re Van Camp, 632 P.2d 1062 (Colo. App. 1981); Hawkins v. Powers, 635 P.2d 915 (Colo. App. 1981); Esecson v. Bushnell, 663 P.2d 258 (Colo. App. 1983); ITT Diversified Credit Corp. v. Couch, 669 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1983); Metro Nat’l Bank v. Roe, 675 P.2d 331 (Colo. App. 1983). II. Effect. The purpose of this rule is to enable an appellate court to determine the basis of a trial court’s decision. Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal Co. v. Bond, 156 Colo. 433, 399 P.2d 793 (1965); Am. Nat’l Bank v. Quad Constr., Inc., 31 Colo. App. 373, 504 P.2d 1113 (1972); Gitlitz v. Bellock, 171 P.3d 1274 (Colo. App. 2007). The purpose of this rule is to apprise prospective appellate courts of the basis of the trial court’s decision. Westland Nursing Home, Inc. v. Benson, 33 Colo. App. 245, 517 P.2d 862 (1974). In order for the appellate court to determine the ground on which it reached its decision, the lower court must state on the record its reasons for a ruling. People v. Abbott, 638 P.2d 781 (Colo. 1981). The purpose of the requirement of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law is to give the appellate court a clear understanding of the grounds for the trial court’s decision. Financial Management Task Force, Inc. v. Altberger, 807 P.2d 1230 (Colo. App. 1990); City & County of Denver v. Ameritrust, 832 P.2d 1054, (Colo. App. 1992). This rule uses mandatory words that the court “shall” find the facts. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959). It is the duty of a trial court to see that a final judgment supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law is entered in each case heard and decided by it, so that on appeal, an appellate court can be fully advised as to the complete results of the trial. Ray v. City of Brush, 152 Colo. 428, 383 P.2d 478 (1963). Parties need not request findings. The provisions of this rule, that requests for findings are not necessary for purposes of review, relieve the parties of the need to request findings but do not relieve a judge of the duty to make them. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959). Factual findings on the record required. Before a trial court can make legal findings or conclusions, and to make such conclusions reviewable by an appellate court, the trial court must make factual findings on the record. Pasbrig v. Walton, 651 P.2d 459 (Colo. App. 1982). Court has duty to make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. When a matter is tried to the court without a jury, the court is under a duty to make findings of fact and to state conclusions of law separately, and even though a court has made findings, they must be sufficiently clear to indicate on appeal the basis of the court’s decision. In re Estate of Lewin v. First Nat’l Bank, 42 Colo. App. 129, 595 P.2d 1055 (1979). Trial court’s order must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficiently explicit to give an appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of its order and to enable the appellate court to determine the grounds upon which the trial court reached its decision. In re Van Inwegen, 757 P.2d 1118 (Colo. App. 1988). Decisionmaker must state reasons for determination. Although written findings are not required, where significant rights are at issue, the decisionmaker must state the reasons for his determination. Mau v. E.P.H. Corp., 638 P.2d 777 (Colo. 1981). Failure to comply literally with this rule is not necessarily fatally defective. Thiele v. City & County of Denver, 135 Colo. 442, 312 P.2d 786 (1957). Brief findings and conclusions sufficient compliance with rule. Even though the findings of fact and conclusions of law are brief and sparse in detail, there is sufficient compliance with the rule if the ultimate facts have been determined and conclusions of law are entered thereon. Manor Vail Condominium Ass’n v. Town of Vail, 199 Colo. 62, 604 P.2d 1168 (1980); M Life Ins. Co. v. Sapers & Wallack Ins. Agency, Inc., 40 P.3d 6 (Colo. App. 2001). The court expressly resolved the ultimate questions of fact before it, and therefore there was sufficient compliance with the rule. Johnson v. Benson, 725 P.2d 21 (Colo. App. 1986). This rule provides that findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions. Garrow v. Garrow, 152 Colo. 480, 382 P.2d 809 (1963); Leidy’s Inc. v. H2O Eng’g, Inc., 811 P.2d 38 (Colo. 1991). Where order is a decision based on post-decree motions, the trial court is under no obligation to attach findings of fact or conclusions of law. City of Boulder v. Sherrelwood, Inc., 42 Colo. App. 522, 604 P.2d 686 (1979). Where an action is on a motion for modification of support and visitation orders, a trial court is under no duty to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Garrow v. Garrow, 152 Colo. 480, 382 P.2d 809 (1963). A trial judge is not required to assert in detail the negative of every rejected proposition as well as the affirmative of those which he finds to be correct. Uptime Corp. v. Colo. Research Corp., 161 Colo. 87, 420 P.2d 232 (1966); Westland Nursing Home, Inc. v. Benson, 33 Colo. App. 245, 517 P.2d 862 (1974). Court’s findings made in detail upon all major issues are in full compliance with section (a) of this rule. Johnson v. Neel, 123 Colo. 377, 229 P.2d 939 (1951). It is sufficient compliance with this rule if a court makes findings on the material and ultimate facts. Lininger v. Lininger, 138 Colo. 338, 333 P.2d 625 (1958); Rubens v. Pember, 170 Colo. 182, 460 P.2d 803 (1969). This rule is complied with if the trial court makes findings on the material and ultimate facts. Epcon Co. v. Bar B Que Baron Int’l, Inc., 32 Colo. App. 393, 512 P.2d 646 (1973). Though it is necessary for trial courts to expressly label their findings of fact in cases involving disputed evidence, it is better practice to do it in all instances. Thiele v. City & County of Denver, 135 Colo. 442, 312 P.2d 786 (1957). Oral findings may be sufficient to support judgment. Where a trial court makes no written detailed findings of fact or conclusions of law, but makes oral findings then when there are no disputed facts in the case, the oral findings of the court are sufficient to support the judgment. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Central Fin. Corp., 124 Colo. 379, 237 P.2d 1079 (1951). Written findings of fact and conclusions of law are not imposed by section (a) of this rule and C.A.R. 10(a). Dunbar v. County Court, 131 Colo. 483, 283 P.2d 182 (1955). If a court makes oral findings and written ones are desired by either party, then they should make such a request in writing. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959). The findings of the trial court may be either oral or written at the discretion of the trial court. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959); Murray v. Rock, 147 Colo. 561, 364 P.2d 393 (1961); Hipps v. Hennig, 167 Colo. 358, 447 P.2d 700 (1968). The court has a duty to make either oral or written findings. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959); Murray v. Rock, 147 Colo. 561, 364 P.2d 393 (1961); Hipps v. Hennig, 167 Colo. 358, 447 P.2d 700 (1968). If made orally, the statements must be transcribed in full. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959); Murray v. Rock, 147 Colo. 561, 364 P.2d 393 (1961); Hipps v. Hennig, 167 Colo. 358, 447 P.2d 700 (1968). Where all of the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered orally have been reported in the transcript, then, if they are sufficiently comprehensive to provide a basis for a review, the requirements of this rule have been satisfied. Hipps v. Hennig, 167 Colo. 358, 447 P.2d 700 (1968). The court’s findings must be so explicit as to give an appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court’s decision and to enable it to determine the ground on which it reached its decision. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959); Murray v. Rock, 147 Colo. 561, 364 P.2d 393 (1961); Hipps v. Hennig, 167 Colo. 358, 447 P.2d 700 (1968); People v. Abbott, 638 P.2d 781 (Colo. 1981). Findings of fact by a trial court sitting without a jury must be made so explicit as to give a reviewing court an opportunity to determine on what ground the trial court reached its decision, and whether that decision was supported by competent evidence. Westland Nursing Home, Inc. v. Benson, 33 Colo. App. 245, 517 P.2d 862 (1974). Court’s ruling that the issue of paternity could not be raised in the child support proceeding because it had been previously litigated was based on undisputed facts, and was tantamount to a partial judgment on the pleadings or a partial summary judgment. As such, no findings of fact and conclusions of law were required. McNeece v. McNeece, 39 Colo. App. 160, 562 P.2d 767 (1977). Defendant’s motion to reopen the divorce decree was not a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 41(b), and therefore no findings of fact and conclusions of law were required to accompany the ruling on this motion. McNeece v. McNeece, 39 Colo. App. 160, 562 P.2d 767 (1977). The ultimate test as to the propriety of findings is whether they are sufficiently comprehensive to provide a basis for decision and are supported by the evidence. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959); Johnson v. Benson, 725 P.2d 21 (Colo. App. 1986). Where record would not support that trial court made findings about probable cause or the absence thereof, or that the trial court made factual findings of exigent circumstances or the absence thereof, the trial court’s findings presented an inadequate basis upon which to resolve these issues, requiring the trial court’s order to be vacated and the case to be remanded for further findings as to these issues. People v. Mendoza-Balderama, 981 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1999). Standard for determining harmless error. The standard for determining harmless error is whether the error, defect, irregularity, or variance affected substantial rights of the defendant. People v. Vialpando, 804 P.2d 219 (Colo. App. 1990). It is only when the findings themselves are inadequate and do not indicate the basis for the trial court’s decision that the judgment will be reversed. Uptime Corp. v. Colo. Research Corp., 161 Colo. 87, 420 P.2d 232 (1966). It is not error for a trial court to adopt advisory verdicts in its findings of fact, and the adoption of such a verdict by the court is equivalent to its findings on the questions thereby determined. McKelvy v. Cooper, 165 Colo. 102, 437 P.2d 346 (1968). When a trial judge signs the findings, the responsibility for their correctness becomes his, and the findings, if otherwise sufficient, are not weakened or discredited because given in the form submitted by counsel. Uptime Corp. v. Colo. Research Corp., 161 Colo. 87, 420 P.2d 232 (1966). The supreme court does not approve the practice of uncritical adoption of findings prepared by litigants; but if, after careful study, a trial judge concludes that the findings prepared by a party correctly state both the law and the facts, then there is no good reason why he may not adopt them as his own. Uptime Corp. v. Colo. Research Corp., 161 Colo. 87, 420 P.2d 232 (1966). Where the findings of a trial court are verbatim those submitted by the successful litigant, an appellate court will scrutinize them more critically and give them less weight than if they were the work product of the judge himself, or, at least bear evidence that he has given them careful study and revision. Uptime Corp. v. Colo. Research Corp., 161 Colo. 87, 420 P.2d 232 (1966). Any court finding that complaint is “true” is sufficient. Any finding by a court that the evidence supports the allegations of the complaint, that the allegations of the complaint are true, or which recites verbatim the pleading of an ultimate fact in the complaint is sufficient to comply with this rule. Lininger v. Lininger, 138 Colo. 338, 333 P.2d 625 (1958); Bulow v. Ward Terry & Co., 155 Colo. 560, 396 P.2d 232 (1964). Where a court sets forth the allegations of a complaint and then finds that plaintiff failed to prove them, a finding of no evidence to support a specific allegation complies with this rule. McCray v. City of Boulder, 165 Colo. 383, 439 P.2d 350 (1968). Comments of trial court at close of trial, although not formally labeled “findings of fact”, are sufficient to constitute such where the facts recited and conclusions announced are amply supported by the evidence. Nemer v. Anderson, 151 Colo. 411, 378 P.2d 841 (1963). Where the record shows no compliance with this rule, remarks and rulings of the court do not constitute a judgment under the rule. Ray v. City of Brush, 152 Colo. 428, 383 P.2d 478 (1963). Entering a judgment is not sufficient setting forth of conclusion of law to properly inform an appellate court of a trial court’s reasons. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959). It is no finding of fact at all to merely state that the facts are in the record. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959). Where the necessary findings of fact are lacking when a party seeks relief in an appellate court, the correct procedure is not to dismiss a writ but rather to vacate the judgment and remand the case to a trial court for appropriate findings of fact; if this cannot be done, then the judgment is reversed and remanded for a new trial. Mowry v. Jackson, 140 Colo. 197, 343 P.2d 833 (1959); Murray v. Rock, 147 Colo. 561, 364 P.2d 393 (1961); Commercial Claims, Ltd. v. Clement Bros., 709 P.2d 88 (Colo. App. 1985). Trial court’s failure to make specific factual findings, so that appellate court is unable to determine the grounds on which decision was based, is error and cause may be remanded. Estate of Hickle v. Carney, 748 P.2d 360 (Colo. App. 1987). Where custodial orders of a trial court are silent on the question of character and fitness of either parent to have custody of the children, the trial court should have made findings of fact thereon, and lacking such findings the supreme court is without compass to ascertain whether the trial court acted properly, so that the judgment will be reversed with directions that findings of fact be made. Songster v. Songster, 150 Colo. 466, 374 P.2d 197 (1962). Findings of fact shall not be set aside upon review unless clearly erroneous. Broncucia v. McGee, 173 Colo. 22, 475 P.2d 336 (1970); Trinidad Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Lopez, 963 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1998); In re Estate of Elliott, 993 P.2d 474 (Colo. 2000). The credibility of the witnesses, the sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of all the evidence, and the inferences and conclusions to be drawn therefrom are all within the province of the trial court whose conclusions will not be disturbed on review unless so clearly erroneous as to find no support in the record. Am. Nat’l Bank v. Quad Constr., Inc., 31 Colo. App. 373, 504 P.2d 1113 (1972). It is the responsibility of the trier of fact to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight, probative effect and sufficiency of the evidence. Hence, the factual findings of the trial court will be accepted on review unless they are clearly erroneous and not supported by the record. Wright Farms, Inc. v. Weninger, 669 P.2d 1054 (Colo. App. 1983); Wulf v. Tibaldo, 680 P.2d 1348 (Colo. App. 1984). Failure to give a jury instruction on the credibility of a child’s testimony at the time child’s hearsay statement is admitted is not plain error in a prosecution for aggravated incest and sexual assault on a child, so long as such instruction was given as a jury instruction at the conclusion of the evidence. People v. Flysaway, 807 P.2d 1179 (Colo. App. 1990). An appellate court’s conclusion from the evidence might differ from that of the trial court. In a trial to the court, the sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of all the evidence and the inferences and conclusions to be drawn therefrom are conclusions for the trial court; although an appellate court’s conclusions from the evidence might differ, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed on review unless so clearly erroneous as to find no support in the record. Warren v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co., 31 Colo. App. 292, 501 P.2d 135 (1972). An appellate court is not allowed to substitute its conclusions. There being sufficient evidence to support the fact findings of the trial court and the evidence being conflicting, an appellate court is not allowed to substitute its conclusions on the facts for those of the lower court. Retail Hdwe. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Securities Corp., 97 Colo. 487, 51 P.2d 598 (1935). Where the evidence in the record is conflicting, but there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding, in that case, an appellate court will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial court. Famularo v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 180 Colo. 333, 505 P.2d 958 (1973). An appellate court may not impress its contrary finding upon a trial court where the record contains evidence to support the trial court’s finding which is also in accord with law. Leo Payne Pontiac, Inc. v. Ratliff, 178 Colo. 361, 497 P.2d 997 (1972). Where the evidence is conflicting, it is the sole responsibility of the trier of the fact to resolve the factual issues. Broncucia v. McGee, 173 Colo. 22, 475 P.2d 336 (1970). Findings of fact by a court should respond to and be within the issues, and a finding outside the issues cannot be supported and cannot be used to formulate a judgment. Credit Inv. & Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 166 Colo. 471, 444 P.2d 633 (1968). Neither this section nor § 13-21-102.5(3)(a) require the trial court to make specific findings of clear and convincing evidence for not reducing the award of noneconomic damages. Herrera v. Gene’s Towing, 827 P.2d 619 (Colo. App. 1992). Defendant’s motion for costs and damages was not a motion pursuant to C.R.C.P. 41(b), and therefore, no findings of law were required. City & County of Denver v. Ameritrust, 832 P.2d 1054 (Colo. App. 1992). Facts are to be determined by the court from the evidence, and not settled by conclusions of witnesses. Royal Tiger Mines Co. v. Ahearn, 97 Colo. 116, 47 P.2d 692 (1935). Finding based on choice of plausible views is not erroneous. A court’s finding based upon a choice between two plausible views of the weight of the evidence, or upon a choice between conflicting inferences from the evidence, is not clearly erroneous. Am. Nat’l Bank v. Quad Constr., Inc., 31 Colo. App. 373, 504 P.2d 1113 (1972). Court findings which are inadequate as a matter of law cannot be upheld on review. Redman & Scripp, Inc. v. Douglas, 170 Colo. 208, 460 P.2d 231 (1969). C.R.C.P. 53(e)(2), binds a court to accept the findings of a master just as effectively as section (a) of this rule binds an appellate court to accept findings of a trial court. Hutchinson v. Elder, 140 Colo. 379, 344 P.2d 1090 (1959). Trial court’s findings held supported by the evidence. Howard v. White, 144 Colo. 391, 356 P.2d 484 (1960); Rowe v. Bowers, 160 Colo. 379, 417 P.2d 503 (1966); Pastor v. San Juan Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 699 P.2d 418 (Colo. App. 1985); Martinez v. Continental Enterprises, 730 P.2d 308 (Colo. 1986). Findings and conclusions held insufficient under section (a). H.M.O. Sys. v. Choicecare Health Servs., Inc., 665 P.2d 635 (Colo. App. 1983). Applied in Light v. Rogers, 125 Colo. 209, 242 P.2d 234 (1952); Shoenberg Farms, Inc. v. People ex rel. Swisher, 166 Colo. 199, 444 P.2d 277 (1968); Estate of Barnhart v. Burkhardt, 38 Colo. App. 544, 563 P.2d 972 (1977); Matter of Estate of Van Winkle, 757 P.2d 1134 (Colo. App. 1988); Trinidad Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Lopez, 963 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1998); In re Estate of Elliott, 993 P.2d 474 (Colo. 2000); Vento v. Colo. Nat’l Bank, 985 P.2d 48 (Colo. App. 1999). III. Amendment. Either party may make motion. Section (b) of this rule, providing for amendment of findings or additional findings upon motion, allows either party to make such a motion. Noice v. Jorgensen, 151 Colo. 459, 378 P.2d 834 (1963). The trial judge may decline to adopt any of the proposed changes by simply denying the motion. Eitel v. Alford, 127 Colo. 341, 257 P.2d 955 (1953). If he believes that his findings and conclusions, already announced, are proper and sufficient, his denial of the motion without explanation is not error. Eitel v. Alford, 127 Colo. 341, 257 P.2d 955 (1953). This rule does not require the trial court to act singly upon each of the proposed changes, additions, or modifications, nor to state any reason for its ruling thereon. Eitel v. Alford, 127 Colo. 341, 257 P.2d 955 (1953). The purpose of section (b) of this rule is to clarify matters for the appellate court’s better understanding of the basis of the decision of the trial court. Noice v. Jorgensen, 151 Colo. 459, 378 P.2d 834 (1963). This rule merely provides a method for amplifying and expanding the findings of fact. Noice v. Jorgensen, 151 Colo. 459, 378 P.2d 834 (1963). This rule does not provide a method for reversal of the judgment or a finding of contrary facts. Noice v. Jorgensen, 151 Colo. 459, 378 P.2d 834 (1963). This rule is not intended as a vehicle for securing a rehearing on the merits. Noice v. Jorgensen, 151 Colo. 459, 378 P.2d 834 (1963). There is nothing in section (b) of this rule that obviates filing motion for new trial. There is nothing in section (b) of this rule to indicate that even a motion to amend findings, let alone mere objections thereto, obviates the necessity for filing a motion for new trial under C.R.C.P. 59. Denver Feed Co. v. Winters, 152 Colo. 103, 380 P.2d 678 (1963); Noice v. Jorgensen, 151 Colo. 459, 378 P.2d 834 (1963); Austin v. Coll./Univ. Ins. Co. of Am., 30 Colo. App. 502, 495 P.2d 1162 (1972). This rule should be regarded similarly to motion for new trial. Section (b) of this rule, authorizing the filing of a motion to amend or make additional findings, should be regarded similarly to a motion for a new trial. Eitel v. Alford, 127 Colo. 341, 257 P.2d 955 (1953). This rule and C.R.C.P. 59 are not two separate rules on the same subject matter; rather each serves a distinctly different procedural purpose. Noice v. Jorgensen, 151 Colo. 459, 378 P.2d 834 (1963). A motion under this rule may be joined with a motion for a new trial under C.R.C.P. 59. Noice v. Jorgensen, 151 Colo. 459, 378 P.2d 834 (1963). Successful party may question finding on review without having objected. Where the judgment in the trial court is for a party, that party is not bound by the court’s finding but may question it on review even though the record disclosed neither objection nor exception thereto in the lower court. C. I. T. Corp. v. K. & S. Fin. Co., 111 Colo. 378, 142 P.2d 1005 (1943). This rule states that in a trial to the court without a jury objections to the court’s findings are not necessary in order to preserve for appellate review the question of sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings. Noice v. Jorgensen, 151 Colo. 459, 378 P.2d 834 (1963); Denver Feed Co. v. Winters, 152 Colo. 103, 380 P.2d 678 (1963). It is not essential to an appeal that there be any motion to amend. Denver Feed Co. v. Winters, 152 Colo. 103, 380 P.2d 678 (1963). There was error in denying motion for additional findings. Calvin v. Fitzsimmons, 129 Colo. 420, 270 P.2d 748 (1954). Applied in Green v. Hoffman, 126 Colo. 104, 251 P.2d 933 (1952); Greathouse v. Jones, 158 Colo. 516, 408 P.2d 439 (1965).

For motions for judgment on the pleading and for separate or more definite statement and for motion to strike, see C.R.C.P. 12; for involuntary dismissal, see C.R.C.P. 41(b); for acceptance by court of master’s findings unless clearly erroneous, see C.R.C.P. 53(e)(2); for summary judgment, see C.R.C.P. 56; for entry of judgment, see C.R.C.P. 58; for motions for post-trial relief, see C.R.C.P. 59.