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 Colorado, during a bench trial where the judge serves in place of a jury, the judge is responsible for making 'findings of fact' based on the evidence presented. These findings are the judge's written statements detailing what facts they believe to be true from the trial. The judge also evaluates the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimonies, making determinations that have the same authority as a jury's verdict. When a case is appealed, the trial court's findings of fact are given substantial deference and are not easily overturned unless there is a clear error. This is because there is a presumption of validity of the judgment. However, the appellate court can review the trial court's 'conclusions of law'—which are the judge's application of law to the facts—de novo, meaning without deference to the trial court's conclusions. For instance, in an age discrimination case, the judge's decision on whether discrimination occurred is a finding of fact, while the decision on whether the ADEA applies is a conclusion of law.