Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Texas Courts

What Are Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law?

Findings of Fact are statements of the facts found by the judge after a bench trial. Thus, findings of fact can be helpful in showing a judge’s reasoning for a specific judgment or others. However, in Texas, findings of fact cannot replace a jury finding. If the parties had a jury trial, the parties must move to have findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the trial court.
Conclusions of Law state the legal principles that govern the decision that has been made . Conclusions of law are not reviewed or evaluated by a higher court. Conclusory statements or statements of law made by the trial court do not constitute conclusions of law.
In Texas, specifically, findings of fact and conclusions of law explain the trial courts reasoning and therefore expedite and make clear the thinking of the judge should an appeal be taken, which they often are.

Function of Findings of Fact in Texas Trials

Findings of fact are usually made by the judge, but can also be made by the jury. Tex. R. Civ. P. 294. Generally speaking, the judge will make findings of fact after the trial concludes or—at the discretion of the trial court under certain circumstances—findings of fact and conclusions of law can be made during and after a bench trial. Under this procedure, the trial court values credibility, makes determinations of fact, and applies the law to those facts to reach conclusions of law. These findings are usually requested in writing at least 20 days before the trial date for the judge to make post-trial findings. Tex. R. Civ. P. 296. In a bench trial, findings of fact are the only means by which an appellate court can review a trial court’s decision on the facts and a court of appeals bases its decision primarily on these findings. Whereas, in a jury trial, no findings of fact are necessary because a court of appeals will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment based on the jury’s determinations of fact. However, if the jury deliberates, makes all the relevant findings of fact, but then fails to answer the judge’s question regarding the application of the law to those facts, the judge may use the jury’s answers to the questions on damages, intent, and contributory negligence, to make a new finding under Rule 298 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In Texas, it is important that the judge make findings of fact, either before or after any de novo review, based solely on the evidence from the first bench trial.

Significance of Conclusions of Law in Texas Lawsuits

Conclusions of law, like findings of fact, are used to inform a trial court’s decision-making process. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 296 states that "[u]pon request of any party who has appeared in the case, the trial court shall separately state its findings of fact and conclusions of law." Generally, conclusions of law are tentative as they are not generally binding on an appellate court; findings of fact, however, are reviewable and will be binding on an appellate court unless specifically challenged. See City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez, 772 S.W.2d 703, 705 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989, no pet.). Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 299a, a challenge to a conclusion of law is sought on appeal, although a party can ask a trial court for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law if there is a failure to make or file the requested findings or conclusions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296.
Given the importance of conclusions of law, reviewing courts have developed limitations on the extent to which a trial court may make a legal conclusion. A conclusion of law is an incorrect statement of law which determines the rights of the parties, while a finding of fact is a statement of evidence that determines the facts of the case. If, although couched in constitutional terms, a conclusion of law amounts to an unstated finding of fact essential to upholding the judgment, it should be treated as the applicable finding of fact. A party therefore may challenge a conclusion of law "as a conclusion of law, or by challenging the correctness of the legal proposition underlying the conclusion of law." Generally, if "the same error is apparent from the record," the appellate court may treat the ineffective conclusion as an implied finding of fact.

How Texas Judges Draft Findings and Conclusions

The process by which Texas trial judges create findings of fact and conclusions of law is fairly straightforward and designed to meet legal standards. A judge may create (and paper) the findings and conclusions any time during a case, but the best practice is for trial judges to enter findings and conclusions within 60 days of the date final judgment is signed. Typically, a party (who is requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law) must serve notice on the other parties of a past hearing on its request for findings and conclusions. Ten days after service of the notice, the requesting party registers the request with the trial court clerk by filing a certificate that attests to proper service. The record must also reflect that the parties were given notice of the proposed findings and conclusions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 297 (also outlining what to do if the judge refuses or fails to make findings and conclusions). Because the time frame for filing the certificate can be triggered under numerous circumstances, a court’s clerk might have forms available at the courthouse for parties to fill out and file when the actions of the judge trigger the rule. Again, the standard for a trial judge to craft findings of fact and conclusions of law is low: "In a nonjury case, the trial judge is the trier of fact and is used to informal hearings and has more than the jury’s standard of knowledge in the case . " Wright v. Wright, 375 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex. 1964). "The judge, being the trier of the facts, has knowledge of the evidence as a whole. . . ." Idennie v. Parker, 32 S.W.2d 115, 116 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1930, no writ). In Moore v. Cedar Hill Independent School District, the Tyler Court of Appeals explained the rationale behind the "low" "[A]lthough Rule 296 requires a trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law that have been requested in a non-jury case, the rule does not contemplate extensive findings and conclusions. A trial court is expected to make such findings of fact and conclusions of law as are necessary to support the judgment, not to make detailed findings supporting every conclusion understood from the evidence. Tex. R. Civ. P. 296. A trial court is not required to make verbatim findings on the specific issues presented and need not file findings on contributory negligence if the issue was not presented to the trial court. . . . A trial court’s findings of fact need not be perfected to the nicety required of special issues. . . . The evidence is judged as a whole and need not point to only one conclusion.

How Do Findings and Conclusions Affect Appeals in Texas?

The requirements for findings of fact and conclusions of law have implications for the overall conduct of a Texas trial. Not only is a trial limited to the issues raised by the pleadings, but the appeal is also limited to those issues or defenses that are tried by the express or implied consent of the parties. TEX. R. CIV. P. 67. If a party fails to request findings of fact and conclusions of law after a trial to the court, the reviewing court will presume that the trial court resolved all disputed issues of facts in favor of the prevailing party and that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the judgment. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 608 S.W.2d at 864. If requested findings of fact and conclusions of law are not filed with the trial court within the time limits set out in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court’s final judgment can be reversed for abuse of discretion. Id.; Oil Field Haulers, Inc., 369 S.W.2d at 804. Upon failure to file, or untimely filing of requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, presumptions that support the judgment arise and this adversely affects a party’s right of appeal. In a bench trial, if a party requests findings of fact and conclusions of law but the trial court fails to file them or correctly apply the law to the evidence, the party may challenge the order following an appeal. In this instance, the appellant must first obtain findings of fact and conclusions of law by requesting the trial court to enter same. If the appellant believes that the trial court erred in its findings of fact, the appellant must supply the missing findings and conclusions to the appellate court. Hittner & Hittner v. Hittner, 730 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). If the trial court files findings of fact and conclusions of law but omits a fact material to the ultimate disposition of the case, the appellant is required to supply missing findings and conclusions or alone assume the record supports the judgment on that issue. Id. A party is also bound by the findings of fact upon which the judgment rests just as though the findings were included in the judgment itself. See Blech v. Blech, 817 S.W.2d 409, 411 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1991, no writ). Appellant’s failure to obtain findings of fact and conclusions of law waives any claim on appeal that the trial court committed error in overruling a request for a jury instruction or in refusing to submit a jury question. Nola Togs, Inc., 629 S.W.2d at 778. Where no findings of fact are filed, there are deemed to be unchallenged findings of fact that support the judgment. Id. Absent findings, the appellate court must imply all necessary finding of fact to support the judgment and judgment will be reversed only if the contrary conclusion is so obvious that it could be said that the trial court was arbitrary and unreasonable in the application of the law & facts. Santa Maria GT, Ltd. v. Schwab, et al. (In re Texas Gluten Intolerance Group, Inc.), 515 S.W.3d 741, 753 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016) (op. on remand). Complaints of an incomplete record, including the omission of findings, conclusions, and judgment, must be brought forward in a bill of exception or statement of facts. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 308 SW.3d 69, 70 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, no pet.); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Waco v. Ramirez, 688 S.W.2d 875, 876 (Tex. App.—Waco 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (essentially a death penalty sanction). An appellant who fails to provide a transcription of the hearing at which the trial court allegedly heard evidence of its corrections to the statement of facts cannot complain that the corrections failed to include some asserted corrections that he sought. Vanegas v. Am. Energy Servs., Inc., 293 S.W.3d 715, 721 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (citations omitted). A complaint about a missing finding can be addressed in an "Odd Lot" statement of facts.

Helpful Tips for Attorneys

When facing a particular case of statutory or constitutional interpretation, it is advisable to request a full explanation in short order and with particularity. If a trial judge elects to ignore your request or fails to comply with TRCP 296, statute, or constitutional provision, as may be the case in Texas Attorney General v. Sentis, LP, then consider an extraordinary writ. The failure to comply with TRCP 296, can be easily deemed a clear abuse of discretion, unless, of course, the lack of findings could not have affected the judgment. It is equally critical for a trial attorney to ensure that the Trial Court has made the appropriate appellate findings of fact and conclusions of law at the appropriate time. This should occur with some dispatch. Should your adversary fail to make timely requests, you will need to ensure that you make the appropriate objections. Failure to preserve the issues may result in waiver of important appellate issues . Also ensure that the record contains the appropriate findings of fact where a trial court fails to submit a particular question to the jury. Failure to make a request will be deemed a waiver of the right to seek appellate review of the issue. There are other issues to address beyond those considerations above. For example, a question as to whether a trial court had subject matter jurisdiction in a court proceeding or otherwise went beyond its jurisdictional limits may involve a different scope of review than other evidentiary issues. Suffice it to say that the substantive law in determines the nature of review. Finally, the availability of remote or subsidiary findings of fact has been a point of much contention in the courts. Discussing them is well beyond the scope of this blog post and I would invite you to research them further in the appellate case law of Texas and other jurisdictions.