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 Delaware, during a bench trial, where the trial is conducted before a judge without a jury, the judge assumes the role of the fact-finder. The judge's responsibility is to evaluate the evidence presented, assess the credibility of witnesses, and make findings of fact based on this assessment. These findings of fact are documented in written statements and carry the same weight as a jury's verdict in a jury trial. The trial judge has the discretion to believe or disbelieve witnesses and resolve any inconsistencies in testimony. When a case is appealed, the trial court's findings of fact are given considerable deference and are not easily overturned unless there is a clear error. This is because appellate courts recognize the trial judge's unique position to assess witness credibility and evidence firsthand. On the other hand, conclusions of law made by the trial judge, such as the application of legal principles to the established facts, are reviewed de novo by appellate courts, meaning the higher court can substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court. This distinction between findings of fact and conclusions of law is crucial in the appellate process, as it determines the standard of review that the appellate court will apply to the trial court's decisions.