Opinion ID: 888046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Respondents' Breach of Settlement Agreement Counterclaim

Text: ¶ 51 Respondents further argue in their respective counterclaims and cross-appeals that Byrums breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The District Court, however, made no findings of fact in respect to this issue and merely concluded in its decree that [Respondents'] counterclaims are hereby dismissed with prejudice. ¶ 52 M.R. Civ. P. 52(a) provides, in pertinent part: In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, and judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58. We have explained that [t]he litmus test is whether a district court's order sets forth reasoning, based upon its findings of fact and conclusions of law, in a manner sufficient to allow informed appellate review. Snavely v. St. John ex rel. Est. of Snavely, 2006 MT 175, ¶ 11, 333 Mont. 16, ¶ 11, 140 P.3d 492, ¶ 11; Shammel v. Canyon Resources Corp., 2003 MT 372, ¶ 28, 319 Mont. 132, ¶ 28, 82 P.3d 912, ¶ 28; Lake v. Lake County, 233 Mont. 126, 134, 759 P.2d 161, 165 (1988). If the district court's findings and conclusions are clear to this Court, failure to state them in the recommended form is not substantial error. Snavely, ¶ 11; Clemans v. Martin, 221 Mont. 483, 487, 719 P.2d 787, 789 (1986); In re Marriage of Barron, 177 Mont. 161, 164, 580 P.2d 936, 938 (1978). It is not this Court's task, however, to review the record with the purpose of making our own findings. Snavely, ¶ 11; Continental Realty, Inc. v. Gerry, 251 Mont. 150, 154, 822 P.2d 1083, 1086 (1991). ¶ 53 Here, the District Court made no findings of fact in respect to Respondents' counterclaim against Byrums for breach of the Settlement Agreement. The court moreover made no specific conclusions of law in respect to the same, but instead, summarily concluded that Respondents' counterclaim should be dismissed with prejudice. ¶ 54 Without more, we are unable to evaluate the parties' arguments on the breach of the Settlement Agreement issue. Although the District Court recognized that Respondents had counterclaimed for breach of the Settlement Agreement, it is not enough that the trial court simply regurgitate the contentions of the parties and then reach a conclusion. Snavely, ¶ 18. Rather, the District Court must also make factual findings and combine those with a logical, reasoned analysis and application of the law to the facts. Snavely, ¶ 18. ¶ 55 The District Court failed to set forth its findings of fact and its conclusions of law in compliance with M.R. Civ. P. 52(a) in respect to Respondents' counterclaim for breach of the Settlement Agreement. Thus we are unable to address this issue on appeal. Section 27-12-201, MCA; Snavely, ¶ 19; Ray, ¶ 19. The District Court's order dismissing Respondents' counterclaim for breach of the Settlement Agreement must be vacated. We remand this issue with instructions that the District Court reconsider Respondents' breach of the Settlement Agreement counterclaim and enter appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon.