Court Opinion

ID: 9733053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:51:44.510756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:38.061862
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Chief Justice
(concurring in result).
Although I generally agree with the majority writing, I specifically disassociate myself from the criticism of the trial court’s procedural practice (page 875). I strenuously disagree with the assertion in this case that it affected “the objectivity of the decisional process.”
I agree that “finding the facts is an important judicial function and that the judge cannot surrender this function to counsel.” Kroblin v. RDR Motels, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 430, 435 (Iowa 1984). However, the United States Supreme Court has held that even though the findings may not be the “product of the workings of the district judge’s mind,” they are formally his and will not be rejected out-of-hand and will stand if they are supported by the evidence. United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, 376 U.S. 651, 656, 84 S.Ct. 1044, 1047, 12 L.Ed.2d 12 (1964). See also Hassine v. Jeffes, 846 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir.1988); Askew v. United States, 680 F.2d 1206 (8th Cir.1982); Bradley v. Maryland Casualty Company, 382 F.2d 415 (8th Cir.1967); Kroblin, supra; Bersie v. Zycad Corp., 417 N.W.2d 288 (Minn.App.1987).
The majority cites to the dissenting opinion in Vetter v. Vetter, 267 N.W.2d 790, 793-97 (N.D.1978). The dissenting justice was concerned with the lack of a basis for *878the trial court’s determination. He stated: “Because, in the instant case, the oral opinion is of no aid in understanding, the majority has chosen to make a trial de novo review in order to affirm the judgment.”
In this case, Judge Steele made oral findings which he later supplemented with a seven-page memorandum decision. At the end of the memorandum decision he informed counsel to submit their findings pursuant to SDCL 15-6-52(a).
Assuming that a litigant’s proposed findings, conclusions, and judgment completely coincide with the trial court’s opinion and holding, what is wrong with striking the words indicating they are proposals? Would the majority require the judge or his staff to retype the lengthy documents, using the identical words? Or, would the majority have the trial judge insist that the prevailing party retype the exact language merely omitting the word “proposed” thereby putting the party to additional legal costs? Neatness is one thing; necessity is another. The requirements suggested by the majority merely put form over substance.