Court Opinion

ID: 9648663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:31:53.770037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:46.077537
License: Public Domain

Katz, Supr. J.,
¶ 17. dissenting. I disagree with the final portion of the majority opinion, remanding the matter for failure of the trial court to make findings of fact regarding the best interests of the child.
¶ 18. There is no question but that the trial court did not make findings on that key issue. It did make rudimentary statements of the facts relied upon in concluding that joint custody was no longer workable, but failed to say anything about which parent was móre suited to be the resulting, sole custodian. The majority is quite correct in noting that the quoted statement from the bench does not constitute findings or any analysis of the statutory custody criteria established by 15 V.S.A. § 665(b). Instead, the statement is more properly characterized as a reassuring or hortatory utterance from the court, perhaps made to relieve any hurt on the part of the father.
¶ 19. My disagreement stems solely from the clear words of Rule 52(a) of the civil rules, which require that “the court shall, upon request of a party participating in the trial made on the record or in writing within 5 days after notice of the decision ... find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.” V.R.C.P. 52(a)(1). Rule 52(a) applies to family court proceedings. V.R.F.P. 4(a)(1). It is recognized that no such request was ever made by either party here. The majority correctly cites Pigeon v. Pigeon, 173 Vt. 464, 782 A.2d 1236 (2001) (mem.), Nickerson v. Nickerson, 158 Vt. 85, 605 A.2d 1331 (1992), Mayer v. Mayer, 144 Vt. 214, 475 A.2d 238 (1984), and Jensen v. Jensen, 139 Vt. 551, 433 A.2d 258 (1981), as reversing for inadequate findings of fact. But none of these cases discuss the explicit requirement of Rule 52(a) that findings must be made only if timely requested. In failing to address that distinction, the ruling in this case does more than merely follow the cited precedent. Instead, the Court is now specifically departing from the rule. In effect, the law of Vermont now becomes: “At least in custody cases, findings must be made, regardless of whether or not requested.” This is a plain overruling of at least several applications of the straightforward wording of the rule: Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. Conway, 152 Vt. 363, 375, 566 A.2d 1323, 1331 (1989); Viskup v. Viskup, 149 Vt. 89, 92, 539 A.2d 554, 557 (1987); Chaker n Chaker, 147 Vt. 548, 549, 520 A.2d 1005, 1006 (1986); Kaplan v. Kaplan, 143 Vt. 102, 104, 463 A.2d 223, 224 (1983); Moulton v. Moulton, 134 Vt. 125, 127, 352 A.2d 680, 681 (1976). No explanation for this change in course is offered.
¶ 20. It would also be unwise to imply that any statements by the trial court which might constitute findings or reasons behind its decision triggers the duty to make findings as if requested by a party under Rule 52. Although courts may certainly make findings on their own volition, and such should not be discouraged, the implication in the majority decision sends exactly the wrong signal: Better not to say anything, for even a little will trigger some greater duty and thereby lead to reversal. Any statement by the trial court as to the reasons for the decision is generally desirable, but it should be within the sound discretion of that court how far to go. This is particularly true regarding an oral statement from the bench at a time when one or more of the participants may have an emotional response. Just because the trial court here stated its reasons for concluding that joint custody was no longer functioning as it should, it did not thereby become bound to issue detailed findings on the best-interests issue.
*495¶ 21. Vermont's rule, depending as it does on a request from a party, is different from the federal equivalent. Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates findings in any case heard without a jury. F.R.C.P. 52(a); see generally 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2574 (1995) (noting that findings are required in all actions and may not be waived). The Vermont rule was derived from Rule 52 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. Reporter’s Notes, V.R.C.P. 52. Like Vermont’s Rule 52(a), Maine’s rule does not require the court to issue factual findings in all nonjury cases. Me. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Bayley v. Bayley, 602 A.2d 1152, 1154 (Me. 1992). Rather, the rule mandates findings only when timely requested by a party. Me. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Bayley, 602 A.2d at 1154.
¶ 22. The distinction between the federal rule and that adopted in Vermont and Maine is an important one because it affects the standard of review on appeal. Maine precedents interpreting Rule 52(a) distinguish between cases where the parties requested findings and cases where no such timely requests were made. When findings are not timely requested and the court’s judgment is challenged on appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court assumes the trial court found all facts that are necessary to support the judgment. Powell v. Powell, 645 A.2d 622, 623-24 (Me. 1994). The same standard applies if a trial court issues findings that are incomplete, so long as no party timely requested findings pursuant to Rule 52(a). Id; see also In re Zoe M., 2004 ME 94, ¶ 10, 853 A.2d 762 (addressing grandmother’s challenge to custody order as lacking specific finding on child’s best interest, court explains that in absence of request for more findings under Rule 52, court assumes that lower court made all of the findings necessary to support its decision); cf. Bayley, 602 A.2d at 1154 (explaining that where party requests specific findings under Rule 52, reviewing court will not assume findings in support of judgment; findings must be sufficient on contested issues to support judgment). Arizona has adopted the same standard under its version of Rule 52(a), with language nearly identical to V.R.C.P. 52(a) and Me. R. Civ. P. 52(a). 16 A.R.S. R. Civ. P., Rule 52(a); see also Pizziconi v. Yarbrough, 868 P.2d 1005, 1009 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) (reaffirming the principle that in absence of request for findings, appellate. court will “assume that the trial court found every controverted issue of fact necessary to sustain its decision and the judgment will be upheld if there is reasonable evidence to support it”). An intermediate appellate court in Arizona explained the standard under Rule 52(a) this way:
[A]s a general rule, an appellate court may infer that the trial court has made the additional findings necessary to sustain its judgment. This principle applies as long as the additional findings are reasonably supported by the evidence and are not in conflict with any of the trial court’s express findings. However, the principle does not apply when a party has requested findings of fact pursuant to Rule 52(a).
Elliott v. Elliott, 796 P.2d 930, 937 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) (citations omitted). Parenthetically, the standard of review consonant with the present rule does not create work for the appellate court. Whether findings were made or not in the trial court, it remains appellee’s duty to point out where the record supports the decision on appeal.
¶ 23. Vermont’s Rule 52(a) must provide the basis for decision here. Any view that Rule 52(a) should be altered is best handled straight on, by suggestion to the Advisory Committee and possible *496amendment. It should not be accomplished by implication or accident.
¶ 24. Reviewing the record in this case under the proper standard, the decision of the family court is well supported. Father conceded at oral argument that the boy was living mostly with his mother, in Vergennes, at the time of trial. Mother would therefore seem to have become the “primary care provider.” 15 V.S.A. § 665(b)(6). The record contains numerous references to the child’s ties to the Vergennes school and its after-school activities. Id. § 665(b)(4). Finally, the extensive email record father submitted as evidence before the family court demonstrates a failure on his part to foster a positive and cooperative relationship with the mother, relating to the child. Id. § 665(b)(5), (b)(8). Instead, the record shows a father more given to laying down his own point of view as the final word, whether on counseling, mediation, or after-school activities. According the deference to which the family court is due, particularly in the absence of any request for findings, its decision is amply supported by the record.
¶ 25.1 would therefore affirm the decision of the family court in full. I am authorized to state that Justice Reiber joins this dissent.