Nicpon v. Nicpon
| Decision Date | 18 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 2544,1 |
| Citation | 157 N.W.2d 464,9 Mich.App. 373 |
| Parties | Berneta K. NICPON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph G. NICPON, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Alan Walt, Brennan, Walt & Guth, Detroit, for appellant.
Arthur J. Heidt, Craig & Heidt, Westland, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and GILLIS and LEVIN, JJ.
Plaintiff wife appeals the granting of a judgment of divorce to defendant husband and the award of custody of their minor children to defendant, as well as the property award incorporated in the judgment.
On April 28, 1964, plaintiff filed her complaint for absolute divorce which charged extreme and repeated cruelty and sought custody and support of their minor children, and an equitable division of property. Defendant answered. The matter was referred to the friend of the court whose report was filed on October 21, 1965. On December 3, 1965, defendant filed his counterclaim which plaintiff answered on January 28, 1966. The final report of the friend of the court was filed on December 17, 1965. Trial of the cause took place on May 26, 1966. The formal judgment of divorce appealed from here was entered on June 17, 1966.
A review of the record on appeal reveals that the trial court did not make any special findings of fact; it did not separately state its conclusions of law thereon; nor did it direct the entry of the appropriate judgment. Further, we find no opinion or memorandum decision in this cause.
The transcript reveals that after the parties had presented their cases, the court made the following remark just prior to adjournment: 'Let's adjourn this case until 2 o'clock this afternoon, at which time I will see the children.'
The judgment of divorce entered on June 17, 1966, indicates that the trial court at some point spoke personally to the minor children of the parties in chambers.
A motion for new trial or to alter or annul the judgment was filed and subsequently denied. This motion did not raise the issue of the trial court's failure to provide the matter indicated above as missing.
The plaintiff raises four issues on appeal which allege that the court erred in granting a judgment of divorce to the defendant; that it erred in its custody award; that it erred in speaking to the minor children 1 in chambers without making a record and without offering plaintiff or her counsel an opportunity to be present; and that the property award was unjust, inequitable and unsupported by the evidence. In view of our conclusions, it is not necessary for us to treat the issues raised.
While this Court ordinarily will not review issues neither raised nor briefed by the parties, it is not obliged to ignore fundamental matters, such as those related to its jurisdiction and reviewing function. To ignore noncompliance with a mandatory court rule directly affecting our reviewing function, simply because the parties do not alert us to such noncompliance, would be to disregard a fundamental matter.
The requirements of GCR 1963, 517.1 2 substantially affect the process of review. 3 In all actions tried either without a jury or with an advisory jury, including an action for divorce, the rule requires the trial judge to make special findings of fact and to state separately his conclusions of law thereon. The same rule requires the reviewing court to accept the trial court's findings of fact, unless it holds them clearly erroneous. This places a limitation upon the reviewing power of appellate courts.
In this case we do not have even minimum compliance with the rule. Noncompliance is, perhaps, understandable, for it was not the practice before GCR 1963, 517.1 to make such findings in divorce actions. Theretofore, in actions of an equitable nature, the Supreme Court searched the record of the trial court proceedings and reached its own 'independent conclusions.' See Jaikins v. Jaikins (1963), 370 Mich. 488, 122 N.W.2d 673.
Compliance with the new rule concerning findings of fact will both expedite the appellate process and make unnecessary our attempt to pass upon credibility and find facts from lifeless printed words. In the search for truth, the cold record is an inadequate substitute for the opportunity to hear a witness and observe his demeanor.
An appellate court's primary function in regard to fact finding is review of the trial court's record and determination whether that record supports the trial court's findings. It is not the function of an appellate court to decide disputed questions of fact in the first instance and then choose between affirmance or reversal by testing its factual conclusion against that which the trial court Might have or, if the trial judge's reasoning at the time of judgment were identical with that of the appellate court at the time of review, Must have reached for it to issue the judgment it did.
Clear and complete findings by the trial judge are essential to enable us properly to exercise and not exceed our powers of review.
'We must know what a decision means before the duty becomes ours to say whether it is right or wrong.' Mr. Justice Cardozo, for the Court, in United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. and P.R. Co. (1935), 294 U.S. 499, 511, 55 S.Ct. 462, 467, 79 L.Ed. 1023, 1032.
The parties in the trial court did not request the trial judge to make findings of fact under the rule. However, the duty to make such findings of fact is not dependent upon a request, but is mandatory upon the trial judge.
The failure of the trial court to comply with the mandates of GCR 1963, 517.1, requires us to set aside the judgment of divorce and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings and compliance with the rule.
Reversed and remanded. No costs are awarded as neither party fully prevailed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eyde Bros. Development Co. v. Roscommon County Bd. of Road Com'rs
...these defendants are liable for nuisance, the nature of the nuisance must be clear. As we have explained in Nicpon v. Nicpon, 9 Mich.App. 373, 377-378, 157 N.W.2d 464 (1968): "An appellate court's primary function in regard to fact finding is review of the trial court's record and determina......
-
Martin, In re
...whether these factors were actually considered and, if so, how they were resolved. As this Court explained in Nicpon v. Nicpon, 9 Mich.App. 373, 377-378, 157 N.W.2d 464 (1968): An appellate court's primary function in regard to fact finding is review of the trial court's record and determin......
-
Michigan Ass'n of Psychotherapy Clinics v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan
...failure to comply with the rule can result in reversal regardless of whether the issue is raised by the parties. Nicpon v. Nicpon, 9 Mich.App. 373, 157 N.W.2d 464 (1968). The mere statement of the court's ultimate findings and conclusory language are not sufficient to comply with the rule. ......
-
In re Edward B.
...findings by the trial judge are essential to enable us properly to exercise and not exceed our powers of review." Nicpon v. Nicpon, 9 Mich. App. 373, 157 N.W.2d 464, 467 (1968); see In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 733 A.2d 298 (1999) (holding that trial court mandated to consider and mak......