In Schultz, 372 N.W.2d at 892, we also said an agency may even reject a hearing officer's recommendation on findings of the credibility of contradictory witnesses. Compare Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191, 193-94 (N.D. 1984) (under NDRCivP 63, if successor judge is not satisfied with findings, conclusions and decision of predecessor judge, successor judge is limited to granting new trial); Holzer v. Jochim, 557 N.W.2d 57, 58-59 (N.D. 1996) (successor judge abused discretion in redeciding the merits of case tried before predecessor judge without affording the parties an opportunity to retry case). As Holzer at 59 explained, a major tenet of due process anticipates that a party receive adequate notice and fair opportunity to be heard by the decision maker.

E.g., Faris v. Rothenberg, 648 P.2d 1089, 1092 (Colo. 1982); Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191, 193-94 (N.D. 1984). One commentator has suggested that a successor judge consider four factors: 1) the point to which the trial has proceeded; 2) the complexity of the trial; 3) the importance of witness credibility; and 4) the parties' good faith.

Because the case is being remanded for a retrial of all factual issues, we deem it appropriate to grant the request. See Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1984). Therefore, we remand the case for a new trial before a judge appointed under Administrative Rule 15.

Later, we limited our holding in Krohnke to situations where all of the evidence was documentary in nature. In Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1984), and McCroskey v. Fettes, 336 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 1983), we held that, where some witnesses testified in court and other testimony was admitted by deposition, the trial court's ability to observe the demeanor of the witnesses who testified in person called for application of the "clearly erroneous" standard. Any possible doubt about application of the "clearly erroneous" standard in this case has been clarified by the amendment to the Explanatory Note for NDRCivP 52, effective January 1, 1986.

Therefore, this court reversed and remanded for a new trial before a different judge. Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1984). Following a second trial, Judge Eckert denied Oscar and June any recovery. Oscar appeals, for himself and as personal representative of the estate of June (who has died since this action was commenced), contending that certain findings were clearly erroneous and that Oscar was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

"In cases tried without a jury, the general rule is that a party litigant is entitled to a decision on the facts by a judge who heard and saw the witnesses, and a deprivation of that right is a denial of due process." Paulson v. Meinke, 352 N.W.2d 191, 193 (N.D. 1984); Anderson v. Dewey, 82 Idaho 173, 180, 350 P.2d 734 (1960); 46 Am.Jur.2d, Judges 37. While this rule would appear to mandate a new trial in a case like the present one, which involves disputed issues of fact, we believe that recent amendments to rule 63 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide proper guidance to our trial courts in both carrying out the mandate of 51-183f and ensuring that no party is deprived of its due process right to a decision by the judge who heard and saw the witnesses. Rule 63 now provides: "If a trial or hearing has been commenced and the judge is unable to proceed, any other judge may proceed with it upon certifying familiarity with the record and determining that the proceedings in the case may be completed without prejudice to the parties.