Court Opinion

ID: 9689585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:40:47.993057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:09.144811
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
concurring specially-
I concur in the result reached by the majority and in much of what is said in Justice Sand’s opinion, but I would have preferred that we dismiss the appeal on the ground that no justiciable issue has been presented. Where a case is tried to the trial court without a jury, apparently on a theory that the making of an equitable distribution of property in a divorce action is a question of law, and is then appealed and here argued that a determination of what is an equitable distribution is a question of law, it would be useless ritual to reverse and remand and have the case tried again on a theory that equitable property distribution is a question of law.
This case has to be distinguished from Nastrom v. Nastrom, 262 N.W.2d 487, 492 (N.D.1978), where we said:
“The lack of necessary evidence to permit the court to make a correct finding is the responsibility of counsel, not of the court. It cannot be corrected by amended findings. Justice requires that additional evidence on property valuation be received.”
We had no suggestion in Nastrom, such as appellant has made here, that because there is no finding of fact on property distribution, that part of Rule 62(a), NDRCivP, applicable to appellate review does not apply. Counsel’s argument on this question and on other questions may have had some validity under the old appellate practice when trial de novo was available but, even then, the appellate court needed some evidence in the record as to the value of the assets of the marriage if it was to *208redetermine what specific division would be equitable.
Most of the bases for my views on the application of Rule 52(a) are set forth in my dissent to Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790 (N.D.1978), and I will not repeat them. Recently I- wag informed that my views are theoretical and have no relevance to the real world as it exists in the trial courts of this state. Consequently, I feel obligated to remind judges of a suggestion that was made by a Bismarck lawyer to the North Dakota Judicial Council five years ago— that courts ought to require that every lawyer present proposed findings in every non-jury case prior to trial for discussion at a pretrial conference. This apparently is the practice in some New York courts, reportedly with some amazing results. Not only does this serve as an educational process for everyone concerned, it provides a skeleton around which the trial is built and, most significantly, it acts as a trial judge’s tool to aid in a prompt and meaningful decision. It discloses to the parties, and to this court if there is an appeal, that the decision is supported by a basis of fact and law. After all, Rule 52(a) is not only an appellate'rule but is a rule of practice applicable in the trial court to “all” cases tried without a jury. If Rule 52(a) is to be made to work for the interest of litigants, as it should, the start to improve its working has to take place at the trial court level.