- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Machic v. Machic
Factual and Procedural Background
On July 6, 2016, Jacinto Machic ("Father") filed for divorce against Chrissy Machic ("Mother") on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. A trial was held on June 5, 2017, and the trial court entered a Final Decree of Divorce and a Permanent Parenting Plan on June 27, 2017. The decree designated Father as the Primary Residential Parent and awarded him the majority of parenting time, as well as addressing the division of marital property. The Final Decree contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law, and no transcript of the evidence was available because no court reporter was present at trial. Instead, a statement of the evidence was provided, summarizing testimony regarding the marriage, children, extramarital affairs, child care, and property. Mother appealed the trial court’s decisions concerning primary residential parent designation, parenting time, division of marital assets, and an evidentiary ruling related to Father's parental fitness.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in designating Father as the Primary Residential Parent and awarding him the majority of parenting time.
- Whether the trial court erred in the division of marital property.
- Whether the trial court erred in evidentiary rulings related to Father's fitness as a parent.
- Whether the trial court complied with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 by making adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to allow for proper appellate review.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| In re Estate of Oakley, No. M2014-00341-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 572747 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2015) | Importance of findings of fact and conclusions of law to afford appellate courts clear understanding of trial court decisions. | Used to emphasize the necessity of trial court findings to facilitate appellate review and to highlight the inadequacy of the trial court’s record. |
| Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) | Mandate that trial courts make findings of fact and conclusions of law; purposes include facilitating appellate review, defining case boundaries, and promoting judicial care. | Supported the court’s rationale for vacating and remanding due to lack of findings and conclusions. |
| Gooding v. Gooding, 477 S.W.3d 774 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) | Compliance with Rule 52.01 provides clear understanding of trial court’s reasoning. | Reinforced the need for findings and conclusions to clarify the basis of the trial court’s decision. |
| In re Zaylen R., No. M2003-00367-COA-R3-JV, 2005 WL 2384703 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2005) | Same as above regarding findings and conclusions under Rule 52.01. | Supported the court’s position on the necessity of findings for appellate clarity. |
| Manning v. Manning, 474 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) | Appropriate remedy for failure to make findings is to vacate and remand for findings and conclusions. | Guided the court’s decision to vacate the judgment and remand for compliance with Rule 52.01. |
| Lake v. Haynes, No. W2010-00294-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 2361563 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2011) | Supports vacating and remanding when findings are absent. | Further supported the procedural remedy applied by the court. |
| Simpson v. Fowler, No. W2011-02112-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 3675321 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2012) | Appellate courts may proceed without findings if issues are clear or decision is readily ascertainable. | The court determined this case did not meet that exception due to inadequate statement of evidence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court emphasized that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 mandates that in bench trials the trial court must make specific findings of fact and state conclusions of law separately to enable meaningful appellate review. The Final Decree in this case lacked any such findings or conclusions, and no transcript of the evidence was available because no court reporter was present. The only record was an inadequate statement of the evidence that did not allow the appellate court to determine the basis for the trial court’s decision. The appellant did not request findings or conclusions below. The court noted that while appellate courts may sometimes proceed without findings when legal issues are clear or decisions are readily ascertainable, this was not such a case. Consequently, the court concluded it could not conduct an appropriate review and therefore vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for compliance with Rule 52.01, requiring the trial court to make proper findings of fact and conclusions of law and to direct the entry of an appropriate judgment.
Holding and Implications
The judgment of the trial court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This decision requires the trial court to comply with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 by entering findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate appellate review. The direct effect is that the prior Final Decree and Parenting Plan are vacated until the trial court issues an appropriate written decision. No new precedent was set beyond reaffirming the necessity of compliance with Rule 52.01 in bench trials.
FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.
Appeal from the Probate and Family Court for Cumberland County
No. 2016-PF-5150
Larry Michael Warner, Judge This appeal arises from a final decree of divorce. Mother appeals, contending the trial court erred in designating Father as the Primary Residential Parent and awarding the majority of parenting time to Father; she also challenges the division of the martial property. Because the trial court made no findings of fact and the statement of the evidence is inadequate, we have determined that we cannot conduct an appropriate appellate review of the issues raised. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is vacated and this matter is remanded for the trial court to, inter alia, comply with the mandate in Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01, which states that "the [trial] court shall find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment."
FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which D. MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., AND THOMAS R. FRIERSON II, J., joined. Paige Coleman, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Chrissy M. Machic. Kevin R. Bryant, Crossville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jacinto Machic.
OPINIONOn July 6, 2016, Jacinto Machic ("Father") filed for divorce against Chrissy Machic ("Mother") on the grounds of inappropriate martial conduct. A trial on this matter was held on June 5, 2017. The trial court entered a Final Decree of Divorce and a Permanent Parenting Plan on June 27, 2017.
The Final Decree of Divorce contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law and there is no transcript of the evidence because there was no court reporter present at trial. There is, however, a statement of the evidence which reads as follows:
As there was no court reporter present there is no transcript provided of the testimony. The recollection of Appellee's counsel and Appellee is that the Husband testified regarding the length of time that the parties were married and the birth of the parties' children. There was testimony regarding the Wife's extramarital affair where during those times she had left the children in the care of the Father. The Father also testified that he had been primarily caring for the children. The Husband testified regarding the real property of the parties as well as personalty. There does not appear to be a big discrepancy regarding the parties' testimony of the real and personal property. The Wife's testimony admitted that she differed from the Husband regarding primary care of the children and there was testimony regarding the real and personal property that was similar to the Husband's testimony. The Wife admitted to at least one (1) extramarital affair during the time of the marriage. Counsel made closing arguments and stated the reasons for their respective requests. Following closing arguments, the Court then made its final ruling which was incorporated into the Order which is a part of the appellate record. There was no request made by the Defendant/Appellant for findings of fact and no request for conclusions of law and no request for any clarification made at any time by the Defendant/Appellant.
This appeal followed. Mother contends the trial court erred in designating Father as the Primary Residential Parent and awarding the majority of parenting time to Father. She also challenges the division of the martial assets and an evidentiary ruling related to Father's fitness as a parent.
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01 reads as follows:
Rule 52.01: Findings Required.
In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury, the court shall find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment. The findings of a master, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the court. If an opinion or memorandum of decision is filed, it will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law appear therein. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under
Rule 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided in Rules 41.02 and 65.04(6).
This case was tried without a jury, and in cases where the action is "tried upon the facts without a jury," Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 provides that the trial court "shall find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment." (emphasis added).
The underlying rationale for the Rule 52.01 mandate is that it facilitates appellate review by "affording a reviewing court a clear understanding of the basis of a trial court's decision," and enhances the authority of the trial court's decision in the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law; without which "this court is left to wonder on what basis the court reached its ultimate decision." In re Estate of Oakley, No. M2014-00341-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 572747, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2015) (citing Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 35 (Tenn. 2013)). Further, compliance with the mandate of Rule 52.01 affords the reviewing court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court's reasoning. Gooding v. Gooding, 477 S.W.3d 774, 782 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015); In re Zaylen R., No. M2003-00367-COA-R3-JV, 2005 WL 2384703, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2005).
Requiring trial courts to make findings of fact and conclusions of law is generally viewed by courts as serving three purposes. First, findings and conclusions facilitate appellate review by affording a reviewing court a clear understanding of the basis of a trial court's decision. Second, findings and conclusions also serve "to make definite precisely what is being decided by the case in order to apply the doctrines of estoppel and res judicata in future cases and promote confidence in the trial judge's decision-making." A third function served by the requirement is "to evoke care on the part of the trial judge in ascertaining and applying the facts." Indeed, by clearly expressing the reasons for its decision, the trial court may well decrease the likelihood of an appeal.
Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 34-35 (Tenn. 2013) (internal citations and footnotes omitted).
In general, when a trial court fails to explain the factual basis for its decisions pursuant to Rule 52.01, the appropriate remedy is to "vacate the trial court's judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for written findings of fact and conclusions of law." Manning v. Manning, 474 S.W.3d 252, 260 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Lake v. Haynes, No. W2010-00294-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 2361563, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2011)). However, when faced with a trial court's failure to make specific findings, this court has previously held that the appellate courts may "soldier on" when the case involves only a clear legal issue, or when the court's decision is "readily ascertainable." Simpson v. Fowler, No. W2011-02112-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 3675321, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2012) (internal citations omitted). This is not a case in which we may "soldier on" because the statement of the evidence is inadequate. Therefore, we must vacate the judgment and remand this case so that the trial judge may make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.
IN CONCLUSIONThe judgment of the trial court is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of appeal are assessed against the parties equally.
/s/_________
FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.
Alert