When the trial in a lawsuit is before a judge rather than a jury, the judge will make written statements of the facts the judge found to be true based on the evidence admitted in the trial. These written statements are called findings of fact, and in an appeal from a trial before a judge (a bench trial), the trial court’s findings of fact have the same force and dignity as a jury’s verdict upon questions.
In such a bench trial, the court (judge) is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. The trial court may believe one witness, disbelieve others, and resolve inconsistencies in any witnesses’s testimony.
The legal significance of a trial court’s findings of fact lies in their potential to rebut the presumption of the validity of the judgment when a party challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings on appeal.
In contrast, conclusions of law generally involve the application of the law to facts, resulting in a legal conclusion. For example, in an age discrimination lawsuit, the judge’s determination of whether the employee was discriminated against on the basis of age would be a finding of fact, and the judge’s determination of whether the employer was governed by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) would be a conclusion of law.
In Texas, during a bench trial (a trial before a judge without a jury), the judge makes findings of fact based on the evidence presented. These findings are detailed in written statements and carry the same weight as a jury's verdict in a jury trial. The judge has the authority to assess the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony, choosing to believe some witnesses over others and resolving any inconsistencies. When a party appeals the trial court's decision, the findings of fact are crucial as they can counter the presumption that the judgment was valid, particularly if the party is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. On the other hand, conclusions of law are the judge's application of legal principles to the established facts, resulting in a legal determination. For instance, in an age discrimination case, the judge's decision on whether discrimination occurred would be a finding of fact, while the decision on whether the employer falls under the jurisdiction of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) would be a conclusion of law. These distinctions are important in the appellate process, as appellate courts review findings of fact under a deferential standard but review conclusions of law de novo (anew).
