Findings of Fact?

Summary judgement was granted to the defendants with out the judge stating his findings of fact or conclusions of law or giving any reason at all. When the judge granted SJ to the defendants he gave no reasons. The defendants have prepared an order of judgement for the judge to sign, stating granted because there were no facts in dispute. There were facts in dispute. Can the defendants write an order for the judge to sign without the judge ever giving his findings of fact? Is there anything I can do to try to get more on the record in regards to the spacifics of how the judge came to his conclusion prior to filing an appeal?

roxy1981:

There were facts in dispute.

Apparently the judge didn't think so.

roxy1981:

Can the defendants write an order for the judge to sign without the judge ever giving his findings of fact?

Of course they CAN do it, they already ARE doing it. 

The judge has given his findings of the facts. He found that the facts presented by the defendant were not disputable.

roxy1981:

Is there anything I can do to try to get more on the record in regards to the spacifics of how the judge came to his conclusion prior to filing an appeal?

"More" on the record? No. You can't add something you didn't get into the record at trial. But you can file a motion for reconsideration, a motion for clarification, or file an appeal.

However, what you do next might depend on the answers to the following questions.

What court was this in?

Small claims to $2500?

Justice court to $10000?

Or Superior court over $10000?

What was the case about?

What did the defendants say in their motion for summary judgment?

Did you write and submit a written response to the motion for summary judgment?

Did you file a response/opposition?&n...

The case is in the superior curt against an A.G. attorney. The A.G. attorneys declaration was their primary basis of the facts in dispute. I filed a motion to strike deficient declaration because it was not dated or sworn to be true and accurate under the penalty of purgery, as required rule 80(i). The defendent responded by stating that a lawyer was not required to do this because of an oath a lawyer takes when he becomes a lawyer (to always tell the truth). The state bar agrees with us but the judge apparently does not. The judge denied our motion to strike the defective declaration. Is the judge abusing his discretion by considering a declaration that was not done properly for his basis for granting.

We filed a response/opposition to the MSJ.

roxy1981:

The case is in the superior curt against an A.G. attorney. The A.G. attorneys declaration was their primary basis of the facts in dispute. I filed a motion to strike deficient declaration because it was not dated or sworn to be true and accurate under the penalty of purgery, as required rule 80(i).

There's your problem.

You tried to get rid of the declaration on a technicality rather than addressing what was in the declaration. The judge didn't buy the technicality and accepted what was in the declaration.

roxy1981:

The defendent responded by stating that a lawyer was not required to do this because of an oath a lawyer takes when he becomes a lawyer (to always tell the truth). The state bar agrees with us but the judge apparently does not.

The state Bar's opinion is meaningless, useless, not evidence of anything, and unless the person cited you some useful case law, it's laughable.

It's the judge's decision that counts.

roxy1981:

Is the judge abusing his discretion by considering a declaration that was not done properly for his basis for granting.

No.

The judge has lots of discretion.

By the way, I did not find any Rule 80 (i) in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure:

http://weblinks.westla...

However, I did find Rule 11(a) Signing of pleadings, motions and other papers; sanctions.

http://weblinks.westla...

Which appears not to require that they be sworn. And for good reason, too.

Summary judgments are governed by Rule 56.  Rule 80 does not apply and even if it did, it does require the declaration be under penalty of perjury--the rule itself says "may" not "must."