Court Opinion

ID: 9783443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:45:54.469737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:23.649617
License: Public Domain

THORNE, Judge
(concurring):
48 I concur in the result, as well as the analysis, of the majority opinion. However, I write separately to express my concern about the trial court's sparse explanation of its analysis of the issues examined in Parts II through V of the majority opinion. Although it appears from the trial court's oral ruling that it based a portion of its summary judgment decisions on its conclusion that the Buyer Parties have not suffered any damages, the trial court did not provide an explanation for the manner in which it arrived at that and other conclusions. Thus, in order to review the issues on appeal, this court is forced to infer the trial court's reasoning from portions of the hearing transeript which contain questions and comments by the trial court that could have logical relevance to the trial court's conclusions. This is particularly disconcerting considering the numerous summary judgment grounds asserted by the parties in their twenty-seven summary judgment documents, with exhibits spanning approximately 990 pages in support and in opposition to the various summary judgment motions. Ordinarily, the lack of explanation supporting the grant of summary judgment in this context would support remand for findings and for explanation. However, I believe the majority opinion's carefully detailed and extraordinary analysis is correct. Therefore, I concur with the majority opinion.