Spivey v. Mayson, 46204

• Decision Date: 03 November 1971
• Docket Number: No. 46204,No. 3,46204,3
• Citation: 186 S.E.2d 154,124 Ga.App. 775
• Parties: Vivian SPIVEY et al. v. James L. MAYSON
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 154

186 S.E.2d 154

124 Ga.App. 775

Vivian SPIVEY et al. v. James L. MAYSON.

No. 46204.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

Nov. 3, 1971.

Andrew A. Smith, Atlanta, for appellants.

James L. Mayson, pro se.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

EBERHARDT, Judge.

This suit on a note was tried before a judge without a jury in Fulton Civil Court and from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff the defendant appeals, attacking the judgment on the ground, inter alia, that there were no findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the judge as is required in such cases by Code Ann. § 81A-152. Held:

Appellant contends that since the amount involved is more than $300, and since the General Assembly, by Ga.L.1970, p. 2446, et seq., provided that where the amount sought to be recovered, exclusive of interest, attorney's fees and costs, is $300 or more, the rules of practice and procedure in the Civil Court of Fulton County shall be in conformity with those for cases in the superior courts, and since it is provided in Code Ann. § 81A-152(a) (Ga.L.1969, p. 645, as amended, Ga.L.1970, p. 170) that in all cases tried upon the facts without a jury in the superior court 'the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and judgment shall be entered pursuant to § 81A-158 . . . Reguest(s) for findings are not necessary for purposes of review. Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witness,' there should have been findings of facts and conclusions of law in connection with the entry of judgment here.

The court may request counsel (usually for the prevailing party) to prepare the findings and conclusions which, of course, the judge is at liberty to amend or change in any respect deemed proper. He may prepare them without the assistance of counsel.

'The purpose of findings of fact is threefold: as an aid in the trial judge's process of adjudication; for purposes of res judicata and estoppel by judgment; and as an aid to the appellate court on review.' 5A Moore's Federal Practice, § 52.06. They should be brief, concise, pertinent and adjusted to the evidence as reflected by the record. Overelaboration and particularization is neither required nor desired. Matton Oil Transfer Corp. v. The Dynamic, 2 Cir., 123 F.2d 999, 1001. They should not be redundant or argumentative, but should be inclusive enough to afford an intelligent review. Shapiro v. Rubens, 7 Cir., 166 F.2d 659; Summerbell v. Elgin National Watch Co., 94 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 215 F.2d 323; Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Liberty Plan Co., 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 893. They are not intended to amount to a brief of the evidence and need be made only on issues necessary to a disposition of the cases and upon which the judgment was entered. Klimkiewicz v. Westminster Deposit & Trust Co., 74 App.D.C. 333, 122 F.2d 957. And like the findings of a jury, or of the Workmen's Compensation Board, they are binding on appeal and unless wholly unsupported or clearly erroneous will not afford as basis for...