Colonial Exchange Limited Partnership v. Continental Casualty Company

Second Circuit

Colonial Exchange Limited Partnership v. Continental Casualty Company

923 F.2d 257, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 1394, 1991 WL 9315

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 1991

Docket976, Docket 90-7907

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 923 F.2d 257 (Colonial Exchange Limited Partnership v. Continental Casualty Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Colonial Exchange Limited Partnership v. Continental Casualty Company, 923 F.2d 257, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 1394, 1991 WL 9315 (2d Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, following a bench trial before Thomas F. Murphy, Judge, awarding plaintiff Colonial Exchange Limited Partnership ("Colonial”) judgment in the total amount of $342,-385.83 (plus costs), comprising $187,194.90 in “additional rent” due on premises leased by Colonial to Continental, plus prejudgment interest totaling $155,190.93. On appeal, Continental contends that the district court erred (1) in interpreting the lease agreement between the parties to require the payment of any additional rent, (2) in not finding that Colonial was estopped from asserting its claim for additional rent, and (3) in awarding interest. For the reasons below, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In any case tried without a jury, the court is required to state findings of facts and conclusions of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). This requirement exists, in part, to permit effective appellate review of trial court decisions. Itel Containers International Corp. v. Atlanttrafik Express Service Ltd., 909 F.2d 698, 704 (2d Cir.1990). Where the district court has made no findings, we normally remand in order to permit the appropriate findings to be made. See id.; Fuchstadt v. United States, 434 F.2d 367, 369-70 (2d Cir.1970); 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2577 (1971).

In making its award in the present case, which centered on an ambiguous provision of the lease, the district court did not set forth its findings as to, inter alia, the parties’ intent in agreeing to that clause. The court’s only finding was that the testimony of one of plaintiff’s witnesses was credible; that witness, however, testified that she had no knowledge of the parties’ intent with respect to that clause other than the terms of the. clause itself. Without findings as to any of the factual issues tried below, this Court is unable to review the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the district court to enable the court to set forth the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law.

No costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, following a bench trial before Thomas F. Murphy, Judge, awarding plaintiff Colonial Exchange Limited Partnership ("Colonial”) judgment in the total amount of $342,-385.83 (plus costs), comprising $187,194.90 in “additional rent” due on premises leased by Colonial to Continental, plus prejudgment interest totaling $155,190.93. On appeal, Continental contends that the district court erred (1) in interpreting the lease agreement between the parties to require the payment of any additional rent, (2) in not finding that Colonial was estopped from asserting its claim for additional rent, and (3) in awarding interest. For the reasons below, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

In any case tried without a jury, the court is required to state findings of facts and conclusions of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). This requirement exists, in part, to permit effective appellate review of trial court decisions. Itel Containers International Corp. v. Atlanttrafik Express Service Ltd., 909 F.2d 698, 704 (2d Cir.1990). Where the district court has made no findings, we normally remand in order to permit the appropriate findings to be made. See id.; Fuchstadt v. United States, 434 F.2d 367, 369-70 (2d Cir.1970); 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2577 (1971).

In making its award in the present case, which centered on an ambiguous provision of the lease, the district court did not set forth its findings as to, inter alia, the parties’ intent in agreeing to that clause. The court’s only finding was that the testimony of one of plaintiff’s witnesses was credible; that witness, however, testified that she had no knowledge of the parties’ intent with respect to that clause other than the terms of the. clause itself. Without findings as to any of the factual issues tried below, this Court is unable to review the judgment.

Accordingly, the judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the district court to enable the court to set forth the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law.

No costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

923 F.2d 257, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 1394, 1991 WL 9315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colonial-exchange-limited-partnership-v-continental-casualty-company-ca2-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack