Summary
holding that “the trial court's repeated statements that a witness ‘testified’ to certain facts or other words of similar import” are “mere recitations of the evidence” and do not reflect the processes of logical reasoning
Summary of this case from Ritchie v. RitchieOpinion
No. COA99-1007
Filed 17 October 2000
Divorce — alimony — attorney fees — failure to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law
The trial court erred by awarding defendant wife permanent alimony and attorney fees without making sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its order, because: (1) the trial court did not make specific findings of the ultimate facts as required by N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(1), but instead made mere recitations of the evidence that do not reflect the processes of logical reasoning; (2) the trial court did not provide any reasoning as required by N.C.G.S. § 50-16. 3A(c) for the $1,500 monthly amount, why the award was permanent, and why it would be paid directly to the clerk of court; (3) the trial court did not make findings of fact as to the nature and scope of legal services rendered, the skill and the time required upon which a determination of reasonableness of the attorney fees can be based; and (4) the trial court's conclusions of law constitute bare conclusions unaccompanied by supporting grounds in violation of N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 52.
Judge TIMMONS-GOODSON concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 15 January 1999 by Judge Kevin M. Bridges in Union County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 May 2000.
Clark, Griffin McCollum, L.L.P., by Joe P. McCollum, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.
Weaver, Bennett Bland, P.A., by William G. Whittaker, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff Charles C. Williamson appeals the trial court's order awarding defendant Elizabeth G. Williamson permanent alimony and attorney's fees contending in part that the trial court erred in failing to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its order. We agree.
The uncontested pertinent facts and procedural history include the following: Plaintiff and defendant were married 5 September 1970 and separated 1 February 1996. Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce and equitable distribution on 26 June 1997. On 10 July 1997, defendant filed a counterclaim for alimony. Following a 19 November 1998 hearing on defendant's request for alimony, the trial court, on finding defendant to be a dependent spouse and plaintiff a supporting spouse, entered an order on 15 January 1999 awarding defendant $1,500.00 per month in alimony and $3,122.50 in attorney's fees. Plaintiff appeals.
By his fourteenth and fifteenth assignments of error, plaintiff contends the trial court erred in failing to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to determine the issues raised. We agree and hold the trial court's factual findings, in large part, amount merely to recitations of the testimony of various witnesses, are not findings of fact, and provide little or no reasoning to support the conclusions of law.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(1) (1990), governing actions for permanent alimony, provides: "In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment." Pursuant to Rule 52(a), the trial court's findings of fact must be more than mere evidentiary facts; they must be the "specific ultimate facts . . . sufficient for [an] appellate court to determine that the judgment is adequately supported by competent evidence." Montgomery v. Montgomery, 32 N.C. App. 154, 156-57, 231 S.E.2d 26, 28 (1977) (citations omitted). Evidentiary facts are simply "subsidiary facts required to prove the ultimate facts," Woodard v. Mordecai, 234 N.C. 463, 470, 67 S.E.2d 639, 644 (1951) (citations omitted), while "[u]ltimate facts are the final resulting effect reached by processes of logical reasoning from the evidentiary facts," Appalachian Poster Advertising Co. v. Harrington, 89 N.C. App. 476, 479, 366 S.E.2d 705, 707 (1988) (citation omitted). Thus, while Rule 52(a) does not require a recitation of the evidentiary and subsidiary facts required to prove the ultimate facts, it does require specific findings of the ultimate facts established by the evidence, admissions and stipulations which are determinative of the questions involved in the action and essential to support the conclusions of law reached.
Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 452, 290 S.E.2d 653, 658 (1982).
In the instant case, many of the trial court's findings of fact are not the "ultimate facts" required by Rule 52(a), Montgomery, 32 N.C. App. at 156-57, 231 S.E.2d at 28, but rather are mere recitations of the evidence and do not reflect the "processes of logical reasoning," Appalachian Poster Advertising Co., 89 N.C. App. at 479, 366 S.E.2d at 707. This is indicated by the trial court's repeated statements that a witness "testified" to certain facts or other words of similar import. For example, the purported "findings" regarding the parties' respective monthly expenses read as follows in pertinent part:
12. From her testimony and her financial affidavit filed August 14, 1998, the Defendant has needs and expenses of approximately $3,010.00 per month. . . .
13. The Plaintiff testified to his family (new spouse, her daughters, and himself) having total needs and expenses of $6,861.00. He estimated his personal needs and expenses to be $4,394.00 per month. Plaintiff testified he took as his expenses 1/4 of household expenses, as 4 people were living in the house (the Plaintiff, his new wife, and her two children).
(Emphasis added.) These findings are mere recitations of the evidence and are not the ultimate facts required to support the trial court's conclusions of law regarding the needs of the parties.
Additionally, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-16.3A(c) (1995) requires the trial court, in making an alimony award, to set forth "the reasons for its amount, duration, and manner of payment." The trial court in the case at bar failed to provide any reasoning for the $1,500.00 monthly amount, why the award was permanent, or why it would be paid directly to the Union County Clerk of Court. See Friend-Novorska v. Novoraka, 131 N.C. App. 867, 870, 509 S.E.2d 460, 462 (1998) (holding that trial court violated N.C.G.S. § 50-16.3A(c) by failing to set forth reasoning to support the amount or duration of a thirty-month alimony award).
Additionally, in awarding attorney's fees, the trial court failed to "make findings of fact as to the nature and scope of legal services rendered, the skill and the time required upon which a determination of reasonableness of the fees can be based." Owensby v. Owensby, 312 N.C. 473, 475-76, 322 S.E.2d 772, 774 (1984) (citations omitted). This failure effectively precludes this Court from determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting the amount of the award.
We also hold the trial court's conclusions of law constitute "bare conclusion[s] unaccompanied by the supporting grounds for [such] conclusion," in violation of Rule 52(a). Appalachian Poster Advertising Co., 89 N.C. App. at 480, 366 S.E.2d at 707. "A 'conclusion of law' is the court's statement of the law which is determinative of the matter at issue [and] . . . must be based on the facts found by the court. . . ." Montgomery, 32 N.C. App. at 157, 231 S.E.2d at 28-29 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the trial court was required to conclude on the basis of the ultimate facts whether alimony was proper. We hold the conclusions of law here constitute nothing more than general statements of the law and are not related in any way to the findings of fact.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the trial court's order and remand with instructions that the trial court make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its awards, if any. We leave it to the trial court to determine whether additional evidence is needed. Having determined the trial court's findings and conclusions will not support its decision, it is unnecessary for us to discuss the remaining assignments of error as the facts giving rise thereto may not occur on remand.
Reversed and remanded.
Judge WALKER concurs.