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 Arizona, during a bench trial, where the trial is conducted before a judge without a jury, the judge makes what are known as 'findings of fact' based on the evidence presented. These findings carry the same weight as a jury's verdict and are critical in determining the outcome of the case. The judge has the authority to assess the credibility of witnesses and the value of their testimonies, choosing to believe or disbelieve them as deemed appropriate. When a case is appealed, the trial court's findings of fact are given considerable deference and are presumed valid unless it can be shown that there is a lack of legal and factual sufficiency to support them. On the other hand, 'conclusions of law' are the judge's application of legal principles to the established facts, such as determining the applicability of specific laws like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in an age discrimination lawsuit. The distinction between findings of fact and conclusions of law is important because while appellate courts give deference to a trial court's findings of fact, they review conclusions of law de novo, meaning they can substitute their own judgment on matters of law.