VSC: superior court may enter SJ w/o written decision; court did not err in refusing to issue findings of fact

In Pietrangelo v. AMI-Burlington Inc. No. 2008-115 (unpublished), the Court stated:

On appeal, plaintiff first argues that the superior court erred in granting defendants summary judgment without issuing an opinion with findings of fact and conclusions of law. We conclude there was no procedural error in the court’s decision. Rule 56 allows the court to enter “judgment as a matter of law” on behalf of a party when the record demonstrates that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact”; however, the Rule does not require the court to issue a written decision. V.R.C.P. 56(c)(3). Indeed, we have explained that “[w]hile a trial court’s recitation of the undisputed facts is often helpful for appellate review of a grant of summary judgment, they are not necessary.” Blake v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2006 VT 48, ¶ 21, 180 Vt. 14.

We are not persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that his request for findings required the court to issue written findings. Rule 52 states:

In all determinations of motions in which (a) the decision of the court is based upon a contested issue of fact, (b) the decision is or could be dispositive of a claim or action, and (c) a party has, within five days of the notice of decision, requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court shall, on the record or in writing, find the facts and state its conclusions of law.

V.R.C.P. 52(a)(3). Although plaintiff requested findings and the decision on summary judgment was dispositive of plaintiff’s claims, a motion for summary judgment is not a decision “based upon a contested issue of fact.” Id. “It is not the function of the trial court to find facts on a motion for summary judgment, even if the record appears to lean strongly in one direction.” Fritzeen v. Trudell Consulting Eng’rs, Inc., 170 Vt. 632, 633 (2000). Thus, we conclude that the court did not err in issuing its decision on summary judgment without findings.