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 New Jersey, 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 written statements outlining the facts determined from the evidence presented are known as findings of fact. These findings carry the same weight as a jury's verdict in a jury trial and are critical when the case is appealed. The judge has the authority to assess the credibility of witnesses and assign weight to their testimonies, choosing to believe or disbelieve them as deemed appropriate. Findings of fact are significant because they can counter the presumption that the judgment of the trial court was valid if an appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence. On the other hand, conclusions of law are the judge's application of legal principles to the established facts, leading to a legal judgment. For instance, in an age discrimination case, the judge's decision on whether discrimination occurred is a finding of fact, while the determination of whether the ADEA applies is a conclusion of law. These distinctions are important for understanding the scope of review and deference given to the trial court's decisions on appeal.