## Facts

- Herbert Roberts sued Norman Ross to recover money Roberts claimed Ross owed him for work Roberts performed as Ross’s realtor.
- The case was tried to the court (a bench trial) in the District Court of the Virgin Islands.
- The district court found in favor of Ross.
- Instead of preparing its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court directed Ross’s counsel to submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a draft judgment.
- The district judge signed Ross’s submissions without alteration and entered them as the court’s findings, conclusions, and judgment.
- Roberts appealed, arguing that the manner in which the findings and conclusions were produced did not satisfy the requirements for findings in a bench trial and did not allow meaningful appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) when, after deciding for the defendant, it directs the prevailing party to draft proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and then adopts them verbatim as the court’s own, without independent analysis sufficient to disclose the basis of decision.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that Rule 52(a) requires the trial judge to make findings that reflect the judge’s own considered determination of the facts and law.
- The appellate court determined that the district court’s verbatim adoption of the prevailing party’s proposed findings and conclusions, prepared after the judge had already announced the result, did not provide an adequate record of the court’s reasoning for appellate review.
- Because the findings and conclusions did not reliably disclose what the trial judge actually decided and why, the case had to be returned to the district court for proper findings and conclusions consistent with Rule 52(a).

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires that, in a bench trial, the court “find the facts specially” and “state separately its conclusions of law.”
- Findings must be sufficiently specific to show the factual and legal basis for the judgment so that an appellate court can review legal rulings and evaluate factual determinations under the clearly erroneous standard.
- A trial court may request and consider proposed findings and conclusions prepared by counsel, but the court must independently evaluate them and ensure that the final findings are the court’s own work product in substance, not merely in form.
- When a trial judge announces a result and then adopts, word-for-word, the prevailing party’s post-decision submissions as the court’s findings and conclusions, the practice raises serious doubt that the Rule 52(a) duty has been met, especially if the resulting document does not clearly explain the grounds for the decision.
- If the findings and conclusions do not adequately reveal the path from the evidence to the judgment, the proper appellate remedy is to vacate and remand for the entry of adequate findings and conclusions.

## Conclusion

In Roberts v. Ross, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court, after ruling for Ross, delegated the preparation of findings of fact and conclusions of law to Ross’s counsel and then adopted those submissions verbatim, leaving an insufficient Rule 52(a) record of the court’s own factfinding and legal reasoning to permit meaningful appellate review.


Roberts v. Ross, 344 F.2d 747 (1965)