Rule 52 - Findings by the Court(a) Effect. In all actions tried upon the facts, the court upon request of any party shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon. Judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58. Unless findings are requested, the court shall not be required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. If an opinion or memorandum of decision is filed, stating the facts and the court's opinion on the law, it will be unnecessary to make other findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions except as provided in Rule 41(b). (b) Motion, when to be made. Upon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after entry of judgment, or upon the hearing of a motion hereunder made by any party, the court may make findings, amend its findings, or make additional findings, and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. When findings of fact are made, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, or a question of incompleteness thereof or ambiguity or conflict therein, may thereafter be raised whether or not the party raising the question has made in the district court an objection to such findings or has made a motion to amend them or a motion for judgment. (c) When judgment is appealed. Whenever a notice of appeal is filed and findings of fact and conclusions of law have not been made, unless such findings and conclusions are unnecessary as provided by subdivision (a) of this rule, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon. Notwithstanding the filing of the notice of appeal, the court shall retain jurisdiction to make and file such findings and conclusions and to amend the judgment to conform thereto, if deemed necessary. Haw. Dis. Ct. R. Civ. P. 52
COMMENTS:
Adopts DCRCP Rule 52 without amendment. This committee believes that this matter should be left to the discretion of the Judge and the litigants. The much higher volume of civil cases in the District Court than the Circuit Courts, the much smaller jurisdictional amounts usually involved in civil actions in District Court, and the large numbers of pro se litigants makes the adoption of HRCP Rule 52, the issuance of written findings of fact and conclusions of law in each and every trial, impractical in the run of the mill case. Nothing would preclude a District Judge from issuing written findings of fact and conclusions of law if that Judge deemed such action appropriate. With the exception of administrative revocation, the deleted line in (a) has no applicability to District Court because it is the appellate court standard of review.