COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NOS. 70839 AND 70844 ROEDIGER CONSTRUCTION, INC. : : and : : RONALD SARSTEDT ARCHITECTS, INC.: : Plaintiff-appellees : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : STANLEY WASYLYK : OPINION : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : APRIL 17, 1997 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case Nos. CV-282921 and CV-282793 JUDGMENT : REVERSED AND REMANDED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellees: For defendant-appellant: SANDER SCHWARTZ, ESQ. ROBERT DEMARCO, ESQ. 840 Rockefeller Bldg. 1750 Standard Bldg. 614 Superior Avenue 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 Cleveland, OH 44113 JOHN D. SAYRE, ESQ. Nicola, Gudbranson & Cooper 2750 Terminal Tower 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - PATTON, J. In a matter tried without a jury, the trial court found in favor of plaintiffs Roedigier Construction Co. ("contractor") and Ronald Sarstedt Architects, Inc. ("architect") on the their consolidated complaints for damages occasioned by defendant- homeowner Stanley Wasylyk's alleged breach of contracts relating to a home remodeling project. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. We hold that under the circumstances, the trial court should have issued findings of fact and conclusions of law; therefore, we reverse and remand. The trial court consolidated the separate claims of both the architect and contractor for trial. The claims against the homeowner arose as a result of various disputes that surfaced during the of remodeling the homeowner's house. The homeowner counterclaimed against the architect alleging the architect negligently oversaw the remodeling, and counterclaimed against the contractor, alleging breach of contract and negligence. The trial court conducted a five day trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the court ordered the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Although the parties each submitted their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as ordered, the court simply issued two standard half-sheet judgment entries. The first entry found for the contractor in the amount of $91,650. The second entry found for the architect in the amount of - 3 - $5,990. Both entries found against the homeowner on his counterclaims. The homeowner complains that the trial court should have issued findings of fact and conclusions of law after ordering the parties to submit proposed findings. The architect and contractor both argue that the homeowner did not make a written request for such findings as required by Civ.R. 52, and that absent a written request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court's failure to issue them is not error. Civ. R. 52 states in relevant part: "When questions of fact are tried by the court without a jury, judgment may be general for the prevailing party unless one of the parties in writing or orally in open court requests otherwise before the journal entry of a final order *** in which case, the court shall state in writing the conclusions of fact found separately from the conclusions of law. ***" Ordinarily, the court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law after a timely motion is jurisdictional. "When a timely motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law has been filed in accordance with Civ.R. 52, the time period for filing a notice of appeal does not commence to run until the trial court files its findings of fact and conclusions of law." Walker v. Doup (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 229, syllabus. This holding stems from App.R. 4(B)(3), which states that in a civil case, if a party files a motion for "findings of fact and conclusions of law under Civ.R. - 4 - 52, the time for filing the notice of appeal begins to run as to all parties when the order disposing of the motion is entered." This is not a final appealable order issue because a prerequisite to the holding in Walker is that the court must have a timely motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Neither party filed a timely request, either orally or in writing, for findings of fact and conclusions of law, so the literal terms of Civ.R. 52 have not been violated. Nonetheless, we believe compelling reasons exist which justify finding the trial court abused its discretion under the circumstances by leading the parties to believe it would issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in such a manner as to make the filing of an actual motion for such findings meaningless. At the close of all evidence, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: Well, then what I think we should do is file findings of fact and conclusions of law. MR. SAYRE: Everybody submit their own? THE COURT: Right. Three weeks. MR. SAYRE: Yes. THE COURT: I don't have a calendar. Three weeks from today is the 24th. MR. DEMARCO: That would be the 14th of May. THE COURT: May 14. When you submit it, file it over here. Be sure to leave one over in the mailbox over there because I never get it. It will go to all these other rooms before it ever gets here if you leave a copy over here. I think I am going to be here next month in this - 5 - room. I'm not sure. I think so. Be sure I get a copy ***. As instructed, all parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Once the court ordered the parties to submit findings, it would have been superfluous (and possibly impertinent) for the homeowner to file a written request for such findings. The supreme court has stated that, "[t]he obvious reasons for requiring findings are `*** to apprise petitioner of the grounds for the judgment of the trial court and to enable the appellate courts to properly determine appeals in such a cause.'" State v. Mapson (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 219; see, also, Jones v. State (1966), 9 Ohio St.2d 21, 22. Without findings of fact and conclusions of law, "a petitioner knows no more than he lost and hence is effectively precluded from making a reasoned appeal." Walker, supra, at 231. The trial judge retains inherent authority to request sua sponte that the parties submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Biehl v. Biehl (June 25, 1996), Washington App. No. 95CA14, unreported at fn.1. While the court has discretion to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on its own intiative, once it takes the initiative and orders the parties to submit proposed findings, the court abuses that discretion by failing to issue the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Had the issues in this case been straightforward, such findings may not have assisted in framing the issues on appeal. However, the court heard a great deal of testimony (transcribed - 6 - into five volumes) and received over sixty exhibits on a number of fact-specific issues. Given the complexity of the issues and the proof adduced at trial, specific factual findings would have assisted in focusing the parties' attention to salient issues on appeal. As the court stated in Jones, "[i]f such facts may not be determined by examination of the court records, it is the duty of the court, by deposition or otherwise, to conduct a hearing to obtain the necessary information to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law." 8 Ohio St.2d at 22. Accordingly, we sustain the first assignment of error and remand for the limited purpose of having the trial court adopt proper findings of fact and conclusions of law. Judgment reversed and remanded. - 7 - This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellees his costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DYKE, P.J. SPELLACY, J., CONCUR JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App. R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .