Mastering Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: An In-Depth Guide

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Basics

Determining how juries and judges should resolve disputed issues in a lawsuit based on relevant evidence is something that courts have struggled with for hundreds of years. A judge or jury determines the "facts," and applies the law to those facts to determine the parties’ rights and responsibilities. The "facts" are things like, "where were you when you got hurt?" or "did you have authority to sign the contract?" That’s what a jury or judge determines.
The "law," on the other hand, is the judge’s description of the rules that apply to the case, including things like: "if the jury finds that the defendant was negligent, then you must award damages in the amount of $X." So, if the jury decides that the defendant was negligent, and the judge told the jury that if they decided that, they should award damages, then the jury knows they should award whatever amount of $X the judge tells them.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law are, thus, written statements by the judge explaining the facts found by the jury or judge, and the judge’s application of the law to those facts. Typically, the judge writes findings of fact and conclusions of law after the judgment is entered . The authorities seem to agree, mostly, that findings of fact explain what the jury found, and conclusions of law set out the rules applied to the facts.
There are two types of findings of fact: general (broad) or special (detailed). A general finding means that the jury found everything necessary to support the trial court’s judgment. A special finding includes detailed answers to specific questions.
The difference between a general finding and a special finding is that, if asked to review a general finding and a blanket judgment, an appellate court would presume that the trial court made all the findings necessary to support the judgment, and would conclude that, therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment. If, however, the trial court makes special findings, the appellate court will look at whether there is evidence to support the answer to each individual special finding — so the presumption is that, if there are special findings, the judgment will be reversed if any one of them is not supported by the evidence. Special findings are, therefore, generally more risky for the party who won. As a result, many lawyers prefer a jury charge with only general findings and a blanket judgment. On the other hand, special findings make it easier for clients and lawyers to understand why the trial court ordered a particular result.

Why They Matter in Your Case

The significance of the findings and conclusions cannot be overstated. Both are directly tied to the outcome of a trial and appeal. There are numerous rules and standards that are premised on the findings and conclusions being sufficient to support the judgment. For example, a trial court in a civil bench trial may grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the evidence if the findings of fact do not support the conclusions of law or the judgment. Similarly, the appellate rules have numerous standards that are premised upon the findings of fact supporting the conclusions of law. Thus, while clearly conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, whether the findings of fact support and sustain those conclusions of law is reviewed for substantial evidence. Another example: while a summary judgment order is improper if it does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, recapitulizing the findings as conclusions of law may still be sufficient. And, of course, there are many other examples. Perhaps the most obvious benefit of findings of fact and conclusions of law in adjudication is that they provide clear guidance to the trial and appellate courts on the outcome of the case. In the best circumstances, the findings and conclusions are so clear that the parties can anticipate the outcome and adjust their strategies accordingly.

How to Create Effective and Accurate Findings of Fact

Drafting Findings of Fact
Crafting a great set of findings of fact is one of the most difficult aspects of the entire appellate process. Findings of fact are simply conclusory statements the trial court makes concluding and summarizing the fact that have been found proved by the evidence at trial. While this may not sound like rocket science, in practice there are a variety of complexities and mind traps that can occur.
We have all heard the expression "garbage in, garbage out." The same principal applies to drafting findings of fact. If the trial court does not make detailed findings of fact that are fully supported by the evidence introduced at trial, the court of appeals has very little to work with. Often times, the trial court will try to pull out the highlights of findings and conclusions. This may be appropriate if the evidence in the case was very clear or if the majority of the case involves something the court of appeals is already accustomed to hearing, such as a custody battle or a liability dispute. However, if the facts are head-scratchers, findings of fact that paint the picture for the court of appeals are extremely helpful in resolving the appeal.
Another common pitfall for trial courts in drafting findings of fact are to make ambiguous or convoluted findings of fact that you cannot tie back to the evidence that was presented at trial. While no one would argue that the findings of fact should stick to the evidence, the findings of fact should make sense of the evidence in a concise manner. A short paragraph of 3-6 sentences is appropriate for a single finding of fact. Any more than that will likely be confusing and unclear.
As a rule of thumb:
In order to avoid the issues identified above, trial courts should not be afraid to delve into detail in their findings of fact. A finding of fact in an opinion in McCoy v. Harris, 909 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1995, no writ), give an example of a well-written finding of fact. In this case, the trial court wrote the following:
The actions of [Mrs. Harris] in sending to [Mr. McCoy] a letter containing the contents which are set forth in [the letter], in conveying to [Mr. McCoy] and to his brother the message the contents of which are set out in [the letter], and in sticking to his initial intention of not wanting to talk to [Mr. McCoy] through an intermediary, and sending the letter which is set out above, caused [Mr. McCoy] to suffer emotional distress unaccompanied by any physical injury.
This finding of fact does not merely restate the evidence but explains it in a concise manner and gives the court of appeals a good understanding of what the problems were at trial. Avoiding the issues outlined in the paragraph above often allows the trial court to hand the court of appeals a draft opinion and say "there you go, now you write the opinion."

How to Draft Persuasive Conclusions of Law

Conclusions of law are those that articulate what the law is and how it applies to the specific facts of a case. They serve to allow a court to determine the issues of law that remain even if there are no issues of fact remaining for the court to decide. In other words, they tell us what the law is but do not make any factual determinations. Conclusions of law typically follow findings of fact and apply the law to the facts that have been found. They often incorporate legal principles that guide the resolution of other issues of law based on the facts of the case.
In addition to conclusively finding what the law is on a particular issue, conclusions of law also serve to describe how a court applies the law to the facts of the case. This means that it must not only provide guidance for the issues in front of it, but also creates precedent for the future resolution of similar issues of law. The combination of the finding of what the law is and what the law is as applied to the facts provide precedent for similar issues and establishing how those issues are resolved in the future. Therefore, it is important to properly state both the law and how it is applied.
As an example of this process, suppose we have the following facts before the court: a father and mother with one child move from Texas to Illinois. One year later they divorce in Illinois and mother is awarded primary residency. Mother and child reside in Illinois. A year and half later, father picks up the child without any notice, comes into Illinois, asks for parenting time and says that he is moving back to Illinois. The trial court finds the facts to be as stated. The conclusion of law following these findings should first state the law regarding parenting time and modification of residency. For example: Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA"), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Illinois is the home state of the child pursuant to 750 ILCS 36/202. The UCCJEA seeks to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states and must generally be given "maximum effect" in all 50 states. 750 ILCS 36/101 et seq. Parental relocation is governed by 750 ILCS 5/601.8.
The conclusions of law following the finding of fact would apply the law in the first section to the facts found in the second. For example: This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case for parenting time and residential provisions pursuant to 750 ILCS 36/202 as Illinois is the home state of the child. Further, the mother was given primary residential provisions pursuant to the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage entered on ___ of ___, 20___ (attached hereto as Ex. A). 750 ILCS 5/601.8(a) provides that a parent seeking to relocate with the child bears the burden of persuading the court that the move is in the best interest of the child. At the hearing on the father’s motion for a modification of residential provisions, the father failed to meet his burden pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/601.8(a) and therefore the mother shall retain primary residential provisions of the child, and father’s motion to move shall be denied.
A good conclusion of law provides guidance to the parties as to why the judge ruled the way that they did and a road map for what happens next.

Key Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Both seasoned trial lawyers and those who have recently completed their first trial may struggle with the preparation of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Because clients rely upon you for a final product that is legally sufficient and on point, it is important to recognize common mistakes and learn how to avoid them. One common mistake is to reference specific exhibits in the findings rather than summarize the testimony. If the court needs to refer to an exhibit to orient itself, the order is diminished. The same applies to appellants. If an appellate court or writ panel needs to refer back to exhibits, the findings and conclusions should be summarized in a way that clearly and concisely conveys the facts as findable from the documentary evidence. Another mistake is to provide excessive detail in the findings. The order should generally be one document of ten pages or under, so only the key details should be included. Also, avoid redundancy and overtly emotional language or commentary that could undermine the probative value of your order. Overly strong language or a vindictive tone can alienate an intermediate appellate court or the writ panel. Instead, opt for a neutral, professional tone that employs reasoned language rather than overly emotive language. Additionally , findings and conclusions drafted before trial can be problematic. Even if the trial has to be bifurcated, findings referencing both liability and damages may be difficult to prepare because additional facts are often needed after damages are tried. In some cases, separate findings are appropriate. For example, a finding on conservatorship and a second finding on the propriety of allowing an estate to be self-represented all in one signed order may not be appropriate in a case involving the son of a decedent with two wills and an active will contest, a lien in favor of the nursing home and numerous previous will contests. It would be better in such a case to have a finding on conservatorship, a second finding on the civil thinking of the decedent to be represented by a lawyer, and a third finding prohibiting the estate from representing itself. To the extent possible, have an attorney experienced in drafting findings review your proposed order before submission. Once completed, draft findings should be submitted to the judge for review. Correction of small mistakes may be accomplished with a hand-written correction. More substantial errors should warrant a return to the drawing board.

Template and Real-World Examples

Findings of fact and conclusions of law are often challenging documents for attorneys to draft. Hitting just the right level of detail to persuade the court while keeping the appropriate level of brevity can be a tricky balance to strike. In order to help out with this process, below is a template for writing findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as several examples.
[Caption of the case] [Jurisdictional basis – must have subject matter jurisdiction under U.S. Constitution or congressionally approved non-U.S. Constitution basis] FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Court held hearings on [dates], pursuant to [citation to statutory jurisdiction]. Those hearings were consolidated into briefing, instead of finding of law hearing, because [REstate what will be restated at end]. At that hearing, the following witnesses testified: [NEED WITNESS NAMES HERE]. The parties also submitted briefs about these matters. The Court has considered the applicable law, the parties’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the evidence presented at the hearings. [Make findings of facts and conclusions of law on each issue] Case Analysis— State circuit courts lack jurisdiction to divide property that is not marital. [Statutes and cases about the circuit court’s lack of jurisdiction over non-marital property.] Here, the irrevocable trusts containing the distributed marital assets were created before the parties’ marriage, so the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to divide the assets. The majority of the trust property is separate property because they were irrevocably created before the parties’ marriage. [Specific findings of fact about the assets believed to be separate property] One asset is martial property, the [N] ETF [specific finding of fact about one identified marital asset].

Appeals and Judicial Review

Because findings of fact and conclusions of law typically comprise a substantial portion of the trial court’s decision, there are significant advantages to this type of ruling – all of which stem from the additional scrutiny the appellate court applies. For example, the ramifications of additional review on appellate resolution of issues of errors in trial court findings and conclusions include:
• Questions of law are reviewed to determine if the trial court erred in interpreting or applying the law. Under these circumstances, the appellate court conducts a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts.
• No deference is given to the trial court’s legal conclusions; they are reviewed by the appellate court as to whether the conclusions are supported by the findings of fact.
• Fact issues, whether historical or mixed, are reviewed under a deferential standard. The appellate court will not disturb the findings of fact if they are supported by competent and substantial evidence.
• If conflicting evidence exists, the trial court’s decision must be upheld as long as it is supported by competent evidence .
• An appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court when it comes to witness credibility or if conflicting evidence is present. Furthermore, an appellate court may not make its own factual determinations based upon its own opinion of credibility or the weight of conflicting evidence; nor may it usurp the role of the trier of fact based upon the appellate court’s opinion of the merits of the case.
• When a trial court omits a finding of fact on an issue where the evidence supports a finding, a reviewing court may find that an implied finding supporting the trial court’s judgment.
• Unless a finding is challenged, it will be presumed to be correct on appeal.
• Inadequate or defectively worded findings of fact will be presumed to be in support of the judgment appealed from.
• As a practical matter the appellate court will apply less scrutiny to findings of fact that are made pursuant to stipulations or agreements of the parties than to findings made after the introduction of evidence.
• On questions of law only, a trial court’s determination will be reversed only when a reviewing court finds that it was erroneous owing to misapprehension of law or facts (the "transubstantiation" rule)