dissenting.
Appellant sets forth as an issue on appeal whether I.R.C.P. 54(d) has been violated by a trial court which fails to make any findings as to why costs and fees have been granted. Appellant points to the provisions of I.R.C.P. 54(e) as well, but I am in agreement with the majority that 54(e) is not applicable to this case. However, I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B) does support what I believe to be appellant’s contention.
I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B) provides in part that the trial court may determine who “prevailed” in an action and “upon so finding,” apportion costs.1 The conclusion which party in an action ultimately prevailed, or prevailed for the purposes of costs and fees, is not always as apparent as it might be thought. For example, 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 54.70[4] discusses at length the various problems possible in making this determination.
Clear, too, is the fact that the determination of prevailing party called for by I.R. C.P. 54(d)(1)(B) is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, such a determination is subject to appellate review for abuse of that discretion. It is in this regard that I find the failure of the trial court to make findings concerning costs, fees,2 and the prevailing party troublesome.
In my view, the determination of which party prevailed, made by the court independent of the jury, comes within the parameters of I.R.C.P. 52(a) which states in pertinent part:
“Findings by the court — Effect. —In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct entry of the appropriate judg"ment .. . . ”
The applicability and function of the rule has been stated as follows:
“Rule 52(a) requires findings of fact and conclusions of law to be made ‘in all actions tried upon the facts without a jury’ .... In brief, where the trial court must make a factual determination in arriving at a judgment there are to be findings of fact and conclusions of law in the civil actions to which Rule 52 is applicable .... In determining the applica*584bility of Rule 52 two things should be borne in mind: the purposes of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and the civil actions to which the . . . Rules are applicable in whole or in part. The purpose of findings of fact and conclusions of law is to aid the trial court in making a correct factual decision and a reasoned application of the law to the facts; to define for the purposes of res judicata and estoppel by judgment the issues then adjudicated; and to aid the appellate court.” 5A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 52.03[3].
The benefits of the rule are properly called for whenever the court is the finder of the relevant facts involved in a decision. That is, when a judgment turns in part upon a factual determination, the rule provides for explanation and clarification, not only to guide the decision of the trial court, but to afford to the reviewing appellate court a clear understanding of the grounds upon which the judgment is based.
Here the trial court merely held the defendant to be the prevailing party under I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B). There is no amplification of the factual basis of that determination, and it is thus incapable of being reviewed by this court as to whether or not such determination was an abuse of discretion.3 I would remand for sufficient findings.
. Though not directly involved here, the language in I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(D) is even more explicit concerning the need to make express findings in support of an award of discretionary costs.
. In my opinion, this would include findings as to the amount of fees awarded as well as to whom.
. The abuse of discretion standard applies to the determination of which party prevailed, obviously, if the court had entered findings, those findings would be evaluated under the “unless clearly erroneous” standard provided for by I.R.C.P. 52(a) as interpreted and applied by this court.