Opinion ID: 2514236
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The superior court's findings on compensatory damages were sufficiently clear and explicit.

Text: As discussed earlier, Rule 52(a) requires the superior court to issue factual findings that are sufficiently clear and explicit to allow this court to analyze the decision below. [37] MAPCO claims that the superior court failed to issue clear and explicit findings to support the court's award of compensatory damages. MAPCO points out that, in the initial verdict, the court did not explain how it arrived at the figure of $65,856.43. Upon a motion for reconsideration, the court revised this figureagain without explanationto $106,815.43. However, as Faulk points out, the court apparently agreed with Faulk's computation of his damages, and simply adopted his methodology. After Faulk's motion for reconsideration, the court awarded the sum requested by Faulk$106,815.43. Faulk's methodology for reaching this amount is clearly laid out in Faulk's motion for reconsideration and based on specific testimony presented at trial. The $106,815.43 figure is arrived at by adding together (i) repairs from 1994 through December 18, 1996, (ii) repairs from December 19, 1996 through March 31, 1998, and (iii) professional and consulting service fees. We have in three other decisions remanded, or implied that we should remand, for lack of clear and explicit findings on damages; however, in these decisions there were no findings to support the award of damages, nor did we have enough information to understand the damages award. [38] In this appeal, the superior court's damages findings are more than adequately explained by the computations included in Faulk's motion for reconsideration read in conjunction with evidence presented at the trial.