they made that judgment? So many things were said at my hearing (a lot that didn't make sense), so shouldn't the judge have to explain how they came to that conclusion (important to know for my appeal).....
No. You won't get a further explanation from the judge. Summary judgment is granted when there is no dispute about the relevant facts. The parties might disagree about the proper legal conclusion to be drawn from the undisputed facts, but there is no fact-finding for the judge to do, and no weighing of evidence to decide who is telling the truth.
When a party moves for summary judgment, the judge either grants it or denies it. If the judge grants it, the reasons are already explained in the moving party's motion, legal brief, and undisputed facts shown by affidavits in the court file. The judge might be wrong about the legal result, and the appeal is a way to test whether the judge was right or wrong. But for the appeal, the appellate court assumes, as the trial judge is supposed to have assumed, that there are no facts except what's already shown in the court file. The appellate court does not need or want a further explanation from the judge.
Summary judgment should not be granted if relevant facts are in dispute. If you dispute relevant facts (not opinions, not arguments, not conclusions), I trust that you filed affidavits or declarations under oath, filed and served on time. At the hearing, it's too late to bring up factual disagreements. The hearing is merely for the judge to consider the legal result of facts already established in the record.
I agree with my colleague. There are no findings of fact. The judge's legal ruling is sufficient for an appeal to be initiated off that. The record will be complete based upon what was submitted by the parties prior to the ruling.
The record on appeal needs to include a verbatim transcript of the summary judgment hearing. Whatever the judge said at the hearing is the best explanation you will get of the judge's reasons for the decision.
However, the court of appeals will review the summary judgment decision "de novo," which means the court doesn't necessarily concern itself with why the trial court judge made the decision they did. The court of appeals looks at the case with new eyes. It looks at the papers that were in front of the trial court judge and makes its own, independent decision. The court of appeals sometimes agrees with the trial court's result, but for different reasons. Even though you may frame your issues on appeal as "the trial court erred," your focus needs to be on why you should have prevailed on the law and/or on demonstrating disputed material facts.
In order for the judge to make a ruling, the judge has to state his or her findings of fact and conclusions of law. That states the reasons, both legal and factual why the judge ruled as the judge ruled. You do not get any other explanation. If the findings are deficient that may help you on appeal. I strongly suggest you engage a lawyer.
The hearing is either recorded or reported by a court reporter. You can contact the court to request a copy of the recorded hearing. This will be at your expense. If you were represented by a lawyer, you should ask the lawyer to explain the ruling to you. Apparently the judge granted the other party's motion for summary judgement. This means the judge was persuaded by the argument contained in the briefs filed by the opposing party.
