When the trial in a lawsuit is before a judge rather than a jury, the judge will make written statements of the facts the judge found to be true based on the evidence admitted in the trial. These written statements are called findings of fact, and in an appeal from a trial before a judge (a bench trial), the trial court’s findings of fact have the same force and dignity as a jury’s verdict upon questions.

In such a bench trial, the court (judge) is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. The trial court may believe one witness, disbelieve others, and resolve inconsistencies in any witnesses’s testimony.

The legal significance of a trial court’s findings of fact lies in their potential to rebut the presumption of the validity of the judgment when a party challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings on appeal.

In contrast, conclusions of law generally involve the application of the law to facts, resulting in a legal conclusion. For example, in an age discrimination lawsuit, the judge’s determination of whether the employee was discriminated against on the basis of age would be a finding of fact, and the judge’s determination of whether the employer was governed by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) would be a conclusion of law.

In Georgia, during a bench trial (a trial without a jury), the judge serves as the trier of fact and is responsible for making findings of fact based on the evidence presented. These findings are documented in written statements and carry the same weight as a jury's verdict in a jury trial. The judge has the authority to assess the credibility of witnesses and assign weight to their testimony, accepting or rejecting it as deemed appropriate. When a case is appealed, the trial court's findings of fact are given a presumption of validity, and the appellant has the burden to show that the evidence was legally or factually insufficient to support those findings. On the other hand, conclusions of law made by the judge involve applying legal principles to the established facts to reach a legal decision. For example, in an age discrimination case, the judge's decision on whether discrimination occurred would be a finding of fact, while the determination of whether the ADEA applies would be a conclusion of law. These distinctions are crucial during appeals, as appellate courts review conclusions of law de novo (from the beginning), but findings of fact are typically upheld unless clearly erroneous.