Following a bench trial, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County issued a judgment in favor of Smart Properties, Inc., Mohammad Yaqoob and Nizar Omar collectively, “Smart Properties” and against Sadruddin Karim and SN International, Inc. collectively, “Karim” on Smart Properties’ claims for breach of a promissory note and breach of a sublease. On appeal, Karim contends that the trial court erred in finding that a valid contract existed between the parties, in allowing Smart Properties to collect on a promissory note that was executed as a result of its fraud, and in finding that Karim was liable to Smart Properties for past due rent. Karim also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Karim’s timely, post-trial motion for publication of findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52 c. Because we conclude that, under the circumstances presented, the trial court’s denial of Karim’s OCGA § 9-11-52 c motion prevents this Court from conducting a thorough review of Karim’s remaining allegations of error, we vacate the judgment and remand this case to the trial court for the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1. Under OCGA § 9-11-52 c, in any nonjury trial in a court of record, a party may file a motion within 20 days after entry of the court’s judgment asking the trial court to amend or supplement its judgment with specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.1 Although a similar motion filed before the court enters its judgment generally requires the court’s compliance,2 the court’s entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law is permissive, not mandatory, when the motion is filed after the judgment is entered. “We will interfere with the trial court’s decision on whether to make such findings only if such decision demonstrates an abuse of its discretion.” Citations omitted. Sevostiyanova v. Tempest Recovery Svcs. , 307 Ga. App. 868, 875 5 705 SE2d 878 2011. As explained below, this is one of the rare cases in which we find that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
