Court Opinion

ID: 9656371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:47:15.301536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.073070
License: Public Domain

*462On Petition for Rehearing
PEDERSON, Justice.
In its petition for rehearing Carpenter avers that this court, in its opinion, referred to findings of fact which were not made by the trial court. In a response which we requested from Schauer pursuant to Rule 40(a), NDRAppP, it is portrayed that, while it could be argued that there were findings missing, the evidence was uncontroverted and the decision was not clearly erroneous.
This court, or individual members of it, have for many years reiterated the need for a trial court to “find facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon,” as required by Rule 52(a), NDRCivP. Uncontroverted evidence does not excuse a missing, but required, finding of fact under that rule.
Nevertheless, this court must be realistic. Rule 52(a) specifically authorizes this court to examine a trial court opinion or memorandum of decision for findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case, because the findings of fact were poorly prepared, we sought the basis of the trial court’s decision from apparent and inferred findings of fact and conclusions of law in the trial court’s memorandum opinion. In doing that we do not imply that this will be our policy in every case where findings of fact are in some degree deficient.
It is the duty of an appellant to demonstrate to this court which findings of fact are clearly erroneous. By placing the label “clearly erroneous” on findings of fact, he has not fulfilled that duty. We expect appellees to clear up deficiencies in findings of fact in the trial court. They should not come into this court arguing that the findings of fact are “only unartfully drafted.”
The workload of the trial courts and of this court dictate that we not remand for new findings of fact under such circumstances, when we were not urged to do so until-a petition for rehearing had been filed. We conclude that the mechanic’s lien law has been correctly applied in this case.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
ERICKSTAD, C. J., VANDE WALLE and SAND, JJ., and NEUMAN, District Judge, concur.
NEUMANN, District Judge, sitting in place of PAULSON, J., disqualified.