Court Opinion

ID: 9851180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:08:34.623509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.646441
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice
(concurring specialty)-
Although I agree with the legal principles stated in the majority opinion and I agree that there must be a reversal and remand, I prefer to base the decision on Rule 52(a), NDRCivP.
Warner v. Johnson, 213 N.W.2d 895, 897 (N.D.1973), quoting from 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil, § 2571, pages 679, 680, stated in part that: “ . . . the requirements that findings of fact be made is intended to evoke care on the part of the trial judge in ascertaining the facts.”
The rule requires that the trial court find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, which form the basis for the decision. The findings should be adequate to permit the appellate court to clearly understand the basis for the decision. Ellendale Farmers Union Cooperative Ass’n v. Davis, 219 N.W.2d 829 (N.D.1974).
When a conclusion of law is not supported by a finding of fact, I believe that the findings are clearly erroneous. We have repeatedly said that we will look to a memorandum opinion to assist us in reaching a clear understanding of the basis for the decision. In this case there is no memorandum opinion and, in my opinion, the decision is not supported by a proper conclusion of law nor the necessary finding of fact. The findings which were made may very well be supported by substantial evidence, but that is not the end of the Rule 52(a) test. The opportunity is available under Rule 52(b) to move to amend findings.
In this case we have an agreement that clearly requires that Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code be applied. There is no finding of fact nor conclusion of law which informs me clearly why it was not applied in the decision or, if it was applied, how. The majority indicates that there are several possible reasons (but which were not raised), one of which is “unconscionability.” Courts are not generally receptive to pleas of unconscionability raised by noncon-sumers. Ray Farmers Union Elevator Co. v. Weyrauch, 238 N.W.2d 47, 50 (N.D.1976).