Opinion ID: 6317681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion for Findings

Text: ¶ 34. Finally, we address plaintiff’s motion for findings under Rule 52. We review the trial court’s interpretation of a procedural rule de novo. Weitz v. Weitz, 2019 VT 35, ¶ 7, 210 Vt. 248, 213 A.3d 1102. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are required, upon proper request, when the decision on a motion is “based upon a contested issue of fact” and “is or could be 8 We assume without deciding that wife could maintain a claim against defendant, because it does not impact our analysis. 16 dispositive of a claim or action.” V.R.C.P. 52(a)(3). Here, the summary-judgment order fell outside the scope of Rule 52. ¶ 35. A decision granting summary judgment, though dispositive, is not “based upon a contested issue of fact.” V.R.C.P. 52(a)(3). Summary judgment is only appropriate when there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” V.R.C.P. 56(a); see also In re Lowry, 2013 VT 85, ¶ 10, 195 Vt. 14, 84 A.3d 816 (“Courts are not empowered to try issues of fact on a [summary judgment] motion.” (quotation omitted)). Our precedent is clear that stating findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate appellate review is advisable but “not necessary” when granting summary judgment. Blake v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2006 VT 48, ¶ 21, 180 Vt. 14, 904 A.2d 1071; see also Crosby v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 143 Vt. 537, 539, 468 A.2d 567, 569 (1983) (per curiam) (explaining that “findings of fact” for granting summary-judgment motion would “merely include precise statements delineating the facts that exist without substantial controversy” (quotations omitted)). ¶ 36. Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are meritless. He cites various cases explaining the trial court’s duty to find facts to support its conclusions; however, these cases did not involve granting a summary-judgment motion. Plaintiff also points to the 1990 Amendment to Rule 52 which removed language stating findings were “unnecessary on decisions on motions under Rules 12 and 56.” Reporter’s Notes—1990 Amendment, V.R.C.P. 52; see Filter Equip. Co. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 142 Vt. 499, 503, 458 A.2d 1091, 1093 (1983) (stating that Reporter’s Notes are “not binding upon the Court” but that they “have a persuasive effect similar to that of legislative history”). This is unpersuasive for two reasons. One, it ignores the full context of the 1990 Amendment, which removed the statement that findings were “unnecessary on decisions on motions under Rules 12 and 56 or any other motion except as provided in Rule 41.” Reporter’s Notes—1990 Amendment, V.R.C.P. 52. This was done because the language implied a broader application than the rule intended and therefore no longer furthered “the fundamental goals of 17 these rules.” Id. In other words, the 1990 Amendment did not demonstrate that Rule 52 was amended to require findings for all motions under Rules 12 and 56. Two, there is case law following the 1990 Amendment stating findings under Rule 52 are not necessary when a motion for summary judgment is granted. See, e.g., Blake, 2006 VT 48, ¶ 21. ¶ 37. Finally, plaintiff states that there were insufficient facts to support the application of the coming-and-going rule in this case and that this absence is equivalent to a contested issue of fact under Rule 52. To the contrary, application of the coming-and-going rule to the uncontested facts of this case to determine whether judgment as a matter of law was appropriate is a legal question—one we resolved above when we concluded defendant was entitled to summary judgment. See supra, Part I.