Opinion ID: 877487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: review of district court procedure.

Text: The City argues that the District Court erred in denying the City's motion to amend the findings and conclusions. The City first contends that the District Court erred in adopting verbatim the proposed findings and conclusions of the District. The City argues that the court abandoned its duty under Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P., to find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon. In support of its argument the City cites Compton v. Gilmore (1977), 98 Idaho 190, 560 P.2d 861; Matheson v. Harris (1977), 98 Idaho 758, 572 P.2d 861; Pattison Trust v. Bostian (1976), 90 N.M. 54, 559 P.2d 842; Duffin v. Patrick (1973), 212 Kan. 772, 512 P.2d 442. However, the City has misconstrued these cases. In the instant case, the district judge invited both parties to submit proposed findings and conclusions prior to making his decision. In the cases cited by the City, the judge made his decision and then requested prevailing counsel to draft the findings. The latter practice has been disapproved by the United States Supreme Court; nevertheless the findings are allowed to stand unless they are not supported by the evidence. U.S. v. El Paso Natural Gas (1964), 376 U.S. 651, 84 S.Ct. 1044, 12 L.Ed.2d 12; U.S. v. Crescent Amusement Co. (1944), 323 U.S. 173, 65 S.Ct. 254, 89 L.Ed. 160. In Tomaskie v. Tomaskie (1981), Mont., 625 P.2d 536, 38 St.Rep. 416, we discouraged the practice of adopting verbatim the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the prevailing party. The purpose of the findings and conclusions is better served if the court prepares its own findings and conclusions, relying on the parties for guidance and assistance. However, the standard for review of the findings and conclusions remains the same: [The adopted] findings, though not the product of the workings of the district judge's mind, are formally his; they are not to be rejected out-of-hand, and they will stand if supported by the evidence. U.S. v. El Paso Natural Gas, 376 U.S. at 656, 84 S.Ct. at 1047, 12 L.Ed.2d at 17. We conclude that the findings are supported by the evidence and that the District Court committed no error in adopting the proposed findings of the District, particularly in view of the complexity of this case. The issues to be determined in the declaratory judgment action were submitted to the court by a stipulation of the parties. The City contends that the District Court did not resolve in its findings and conclusions all of the issues presented by the City in that stipulation. The District Court is not bound to rule on all of the issues stipulated by the parties in a declaratory judgment action. The court is entitled in its discretion to refuse to rule on issues which are speculative, conjectural and academic, which are unnecessary to the resolution of an existing controversy or which merely seek legal advice on eventualities which may or may not arise in the future. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation v. Intake Water Co. (1976), 171 Mont. 416, 558 P.2d 1110. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act is not a device to be used by litigants to fish in judicial ponds for legal advice. Little v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. (1960), 252 N.C. 229, 113 S.E.2d 689, 701. Moreover, we have reviewed the findings and conclusions and have found that all of the major issues were addressed by the District Court. No specific conclusions were made with respect to the effect of the Municipal Revenue Bond Act and the annexation, zoning and subdivision statutes on the jurisdiction of the PSC. Since those issues were discussed in the briefs submitted to the District Court, rejection of those arguments may be implied from the court's conclusion that the PSC had full regulatory power over the City. We find that the District Court did not err in denying the City's motion to amend its findings and conclusions.