The special findings of fact required by Section 17-5 to be made, if requested, as an incident to the judgment should ordinarily form a part of the judgment file. It should contain only facts material to the issues tried. When any fact upon which final judgment is founded is simply a bare conclusion of law from more detailed and subordinate facts, as, for instance, in cases of constructive fraud, the finding, if a special one be requested, must specially set forth the subordinate facts from which, as such conclusion of law, the judicial authority finds the principal fact. In such cases the finding should be such as distinctly to show any conclusion of law thus drawn. When a material fact is found from more detailed or subordinate facts, not as a conclusion of law but as a conclusion of fact, only the main or resulting fact should be set forth in the finding.
Section 17-9.—Form and Contents of Special Finding
Current through August 12, 2025 (2026 Practice Book edition) · Last verified July 9, 2026
In one sentenceDescribes what a special finding of facts must contain when requested: only material facts, with subordinate facts spelled out whenever the ultimate fact is a conclusion of law rather than a conclusion of fact.
Full Text of Section 17-9
Amendment History
(P.B. 1978-1997, Sec. 334.)
Plain-English Summary
A special finding of facts required by Section 17-5, when a party requests one, should ordinarily form part of the judgment file. It should hold only facts material to the issues tried — nothing extraneous.
The rule draws a distinction based on how a fact was reached. When a fact underlying the judgment is a bare conclusion of law drawn from more detailed subordinate facts — the rule gives constructive fraud as an example — the special finding must set out those subordinate facts, and it should distinctly show the conclusion of law drawn from them. But when a material fact is reached from more detailed facts as a conclusion of fact, not a conclusion of law, only the main or resulting fact needs to appear in the finding; the subordinate facts behind it can stay out.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must a special finding of facts include in Connecticut?
Only facts material to the issues tried. It ordinarily forms part of the judgment file.
Why does it matter whether a fact is a conclusion of law or a conclusion of fact?
If a fact is a bare conclusion of law drawn from subordinate facts, the special finding must spell out those subordinate facts and show the legal conclusion drawn from them. If it is instead a conclusion of fact, only the resulting fact needs to appear, without the underlying details.
Does Section 17-9 give an example of a conclusion of law?
Yes, it mentions constructive fraud as an instance where a finding may rest on a bare conclusion of law from more detailed subordinate facts.
Source & verification. The section text is reproduced verbatim from the
official Connecticut Practice Book (Conn. Practice Book § 17-9). Prescribed by the Judges of the Superior Court of Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 51-14). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 9, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: contents of special finding of factsconclusion of law versus conclusion of fact findingjudgment file special finding CTconstructive fraud special findingPractice Book 17-9