Opinion ID: 2422764
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ruling upon Defendants' Specific Requests

Text: Finally, the defendants assert that the trial court erred when it declined to rule specifically upon its individual requests for findings of fact and rulings of law. RSA 491:15 (2010) provides: The court . . . shall, if either party requests it, give his decision in writing, stating the facts found and his rulings of law, which shall be filed and recorded. In interpreting RSA 491:15, we have held that although a superior court justice sitting without a jury is generally under no obligation to make findings and rulings in support of a decree unless a party asks for them, when either party does request them, RSA 491:15 requires a statement of facts and legal rulings in jury-waived and non-jury cases. Harrington v. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. 74, 85, 872 A.2d 990 (2005). The trial judge in such a case need not respond to every request filed by a party, but the court is obligated to make findings of the basic or essential facts that are sufficient to support the ultimate decision. Id. This may be done in the narrative form, and the essential rulings of law may be likewise explained. Id. The object is to allow an opportunity for adequate review in this court by providing us with the actual basis for the trial court's decision, in terms of facts found and law applied. M.A. Crowley Trucking v. Moyers, 140 N.H. 190, 195, 665 A.2d 1077 (1995). Here, the trial court's order sets forth both sufficient findings of fact and essential rulings of law to support its ultimate decision. See Harrington, 152 N.H. at 86, 872 A.2d 990. Although the trial court did not rule upon the defendants' proposed findings and rulings, the trial judge need not respond expressly to every specific request filed by a party. Id. (quotation and ellipsis omitted). Accordingly, the trial court did not fail to provide an adequate basis for appellate review of its decision. See id. Affirmed.