Opinion ID: 1810926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: PVM's Appeal

Text: PVM argues that Rule 52(a), NDRCivP, is applicable and that the memorandum decision, the findings of fact, and the conclusions of law are not supported by the evidence, and then points out that this court has repeatedly said that: Construction of a written contract to determine its legal effect is a question of law for the court to decide. Stetson v. Blue Cross of North Dakota, 261 N.W.2d 894, 896 (N.D.1978). Before we can arrive at any disposition of this argument, which would apparently require a distinguishment between fact issues, law issues, and issues of mixed fact and law, we must examine the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the memorandum decision to determine upon what basis the trial court acted. In paragraphs VIII and IX, the trial court finds as a fact that PVM has failed in its burden of proof. Very little additional explanation is found in the memorandum decision where the trial court merely said that PVM made little attempt to delineate or explain any of the bills, PVM is required to carry the burden of proof, and his [PVM's] claim must fail. These are the type of findings of fact which this court specifically rejected in Struchynski v. Decker, 194 N.W.2d 741 (N.D.1972). See also comments on the purposes of Rule 52(a) in Peterson v. Hart, 278 N.W.2d 133, 136 (N.D.1979). The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for the preparation of more adequate findings of fact or, if deemed necessary by the trial court, for a new trial. No costs on appeal will be allowed. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PAULSON, SAND and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur.