..."`"A motion for a new trial is a proper means of seeking a retrial or reexamination, in the same court, of an issue of fact, or of some part or portion thereof, after decision by a jury or a decision by the court thereon." (Cit.)' [Cit.]" Underwood v. Underwood, 282 Ga. 643, 644(1), 651 S.E.2d 736 (2007). Under OCGA § 9-11-52(c), "`[a] motion for new trial may be used in addition to the filing of motions [to amend] in attacking fact findings, by the court in non-jury trials, contained in the entered judgment.' [Cit.]" Eldridge v....

...gs, even though Hobgood filed a pretrial motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law and reiterated that request at the hearing. Pellegrino, however, did not join in those requests or make a post-judgment motion for such findings, see OCGA § 9-11-52 (c), and he therefore waived review of this complaint....

...ng $8,000, the trial court found that she did, and we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in doing so. See id. 5. Carol contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law under OCGA § 9-11-52(c)....

..."A trial court presiding over a bench trial . . . in a court of record is statutorily required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law `upon (the) request of any party made prior to such ruling.'" Payson v. Payson, 274 Ga. 231, 234, 552 S.E.2d 839 (2001) (quoting OCGA § 9-11-52(a)). In Payson, we construed the word "ruling" in OCGA § 9-11-52(a) to mean the trial court's judgment. Id. at 234-236, 552 S.E.2d 839. Here, because Carol moved for findings of fact after entry of the judgment, the trial court had the discretion to grant the motion for findings of fact but was not required to do so. See OCGA § 9-11-52(c) (providing that "[u]pon motion made not later than 20 days after entry of judgment, the court may make ....

.... findings" (emphasis added)); Greene County v. North Shore Resort at Lake Oconee, LLC, 238 Ga.App. 236, 241, 517 S.E.2d 553 (1999) (holding that a trial court has discretion whether to grant or deny a post-judgment request for findings under OCGA § 9-11-52(c))....

...Because the trial in this case was not so complex as to make appellate review impossible without specific factual findings, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carol's motion for findings of fact under *267 OCGA § 9-11-52(c)....

...As an initial matter, we must point out that [a] motion for a new trial is a proper means of seeking a retrial or reexamination, in the same court, of an issue of fact, or of some part or portion thereof, after decision by a jury or a decision by the court thereon. Under OCGA § 9-11-52(c), a motion for new trial may be used in addition to the filing of motions to amend in attacking fact findings, by the court in non-jury trials, contained in the entered judgment....

...r involuntary dismissal. In all nonjury trials, the trial court's findings of fact "shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." OCGA § 9-11-52(a)....

...ad been denied, and filed timely notices of appeal. 9  Appellant’s contention that the orders are also invalid because they do not contain findings of fact is without merit. Appellant relies on OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) to argue that findings of fact were necessary, but that Code section is inapplicable to this criminal case....

...The comments about the unusual circumstances of the case-are not sufficient here to enable meaningful appellate review. We note that Wang also did not argue at the hearing on the motion to dismiss that an explained decision was required. Aparty need not await a proposed order to ask for an explained decision. Cf. OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) (findings and conclusions in rulings on interlocutory injunctions and nonjury trials “upon request of any party made prior to such ruling”). To the extent that Kennestone Hosp., 288 Ga....

...00,000 in lump-sum alimony, to be paid in monthly installments of $3,500 for the next five years.1 On March 23, 2012, Husband filed a motion for new trial, and on March 27, he filed a motion to amend and/or make additional findings pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52....

...mining an equitable division. Husband cites no authority requiring such a finding, and trial courts generally are not required to make findings of fact in nonjury trials unless requested by one of the parties prior to entry of the judgment. See OCGA § 9-11-52 (a); Mathis, 281 Ga. at 867. Husband did not request findings of fact until his post-judgment motion to amend and/or make additional findings. At that point, the trial court had discretion to make additional findings but was not obligated to do so. See OCGA § 9-11-52 (c) (providing that “[u]pon motion made not later than 20 days after entry of judgment, the court may make ....

...al court's judgment. While the Civil Practice Act authorizes a trial court to grant a motion for summary judgment without setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law ( Thomas v. DeKalb County, 227 Ga.App. 186(1), 489 S.E.2d 58 (1997); OCGA § 9-11-52(a)), the special procedures of the Quiet Title Act requiring that findings be reported take precedence over the conflicting requirements of the CPA....

...Relevant to the treatment of Father’s BAH compensation is OCGA § 19-6-15 (f) (1) (E) (iv),4 issue is not ripe for review. See Demmons v. Wilson-Demmons, 293 Ga. 349, 350 (2) (745 SE2d 645) (2013). Mother also separately enumerates as error the trial court’s failure, under authority of OCGA § 9-11-52 (a), to make findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to the travel deviation, as she orally requested at the final hearing....

...There was no error. (c) The Intervenors next contend that the trial court failed to make legally adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the bond proposal and its corresponding security provided by infrastructure fees are sound, feasible, and reasonable. See OCGA § 9-11-52 (a).21 In its order validating the issuance of the 21 This statute provides: In ruling on interlocutory injunctions and in all nonjury trials in courts of record, the court shall upon request of any party made prior...

...In this situation, Georgia law requires findings of fact and conclusions of law: A trial court presiding over a bench trial “shall upon request of any party made prior to such ruling, find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law.” OCGA § 9-11-52 (a)....

...1. We echo the caution previously issued by our Court of Appeals on this issue: We caution, however, that our decision is not to be read as a general rule allowing a party to dispense with the requirement that it formally request findings and conclusions pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) or holding that a party will always be rescued from its failure to make such a request on the record. Gold Kist, Inc....

...rial. In granting the application, this Court expressed itself as particularly concerned with: whether the trial court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in response to Husband’s request made pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52; and whether the trial court erred in its division of marital property by allowing Wife to delay the ultimate division of the marital home’s value for an indefinite period of time. 1....

...use of discretion. Welch v. Welch, 277 Ga. 808, 809 (596 SE2d 134) (2004) (citation omitted). See also Cook v. Cook, 280 Ga. 768 (1) (632 SE2d 664) (2006). As noted, Husband requested specific findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52 (a).1 Nevertheless, because the final judgment contains a finding of fact supported by the evidence that is sufficient to support the award of custody to Wife and from which this Court may make a meaningful appellate review of the award, w...

...award. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the Civil Practice Act applies to actions for divorce, alimony and custody of minor children. OCGA § 19-5-8. Accordingly, where, as in this proceeding, a party makes a timely request pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52 (a), “the court shall upon request of any party made prior to such ruling, find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law.” Husband filed his written request for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) after the hearing in this matter but before the judgment was entered and thus his request was timely. See Payson v. Payson, 274 Ga. 231 (2) (552 SE2d 839) (2001). He also preserved his right to appeal the adequacy or incompleteness of the findings or conclusions of law to support the judgment by filing a timely motion for new trial. See OCGA § 9-11-52 (c); Kuriatnyk v....

...800, 802 (2) (741 SE2d 631) (2013), this Court found “no error in the trial court’s failure to make a precise finding of the total value of the marital estate before determining an equitable division.” In Driver, the request for findings of fact was made by post-judgment motion pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52 (c) and thus findings of fact were not mandatory but subject to the trial court’s discretion. See Hunter v. Hunter, 289 Ga. 9, 12 (5) (709 SE2d 263) (2011). In this case, however, Husband made a timely request *66pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) and thus findings of fact and conclusions of law were mandatory....

...f the total value of the marital estate before determining an equitable division of property. Nevertheless, as this Court signaled in Crowder v. Crowder, 281 Ga. 656, 658 (642 SE2d 97) (2007), when one of the parties makes a request pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52 (a), this triggers, at a minimum, a requirement that the judgment contain not just the results of the trial court’s exercise of discretion in arriving at the equitable division of marital property but also sufficient findings of fact to “clarify the rationale used by the trial court to reach its result.”2 Crowder, supra at 658. To hold otherwise would render a request under OCGA § '9-11-52 (a) in a division of marital property case meaningless....

...st that the trial court amend its judgment to separately make such findings or conclusions. As a result, [he] has waived the right to challenge the sufficiency of the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-52. (Footnote omitted.) City of East Point v. Jordan, 300 Ga.App. 891, 893(2), 686 S.E.2d 471 (2009). See also OCGA § 9-11-52(c) ("Upon motion made not later than 20 days after entry of judgment, the court may make or amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly.....

...50, 53-54, 518 S.E.2d 407 (1999) (Citations and punctuation omitted.). 2. ALF urges that the trial court's grant of the interlocutory injunction is erroneous because it did not specify its reasoning in granting it. But, ALF has not shown that it requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, see OCGA § 9-11-52(a), and thus it fails to demonstrate error....

...Our review of the hearing transcript establishes, contrary to appellant's contention, that the trial court did not clearly err when it found as fact that H.B. 264 would not result in any gross tax increase to the unincorporated areas of DeKalb County. See generally OCGA § 9-11-52(a)....

...Pace, 287 Ga. 899, 900 (700 SE2d 571) (2010). 2. The trial court did not err in denying wife’s post-judgment request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Youngblood v. Youngblood, 263 Ga. App. 820, 821 (589 SE2d 602) (2003); OCGA § 9-11-52. 3....

...er and sediment by artificial means onto other portions of the McManus property. As with the other pertinent findings of the trial court, this finding has some support in the evidentiary record, and we cannot say it is clearly erroneous. See OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) (“In ruling on interlocutory injunctions ....

...587, 590-591 (261 SE2d 349) (1979) (“Unless clearly erroneous, a trial court’s findings as to factual 6 Our lack of explanation, and our reflexive importation of a federal standard, is all the more confounding against the backdrop of the Georgia General Assembly enacting in 1969 a predecessor to OCGA § 9-11-52, which provided in part that “[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.” Ga....

...conclusions of law thereon and judgment shall be entered . . . . Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.”) (emphasis added); OCGA § 9-11-52 (1987) (succeeding Code § 81A-152; also setting forth a “clearly erroneous” standard of review for trial court fact-findings in civil cases).13 See also Brook Forest Enterprises, Inc. v. Paulding 13 It is worth emphasizing that in civil cases, unlike in criminal cases, the General Assembly has codified a standard—“clearly erroneous”—for review of a trial court’s factual findings. See OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) (1987). Whether Georgia courts have correctly interpreted that statutory text in civil cases is not the subject of this concurrence. 30 County, 231 Ga....

...in finding Mr. Boggs would suffer irreparable harm if the interlocutory injunction were denied. We find them all to be without merit. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490, 496 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2005). [2] OCGA § 9-11-52(a) ("In ruling on interlocutory injunctions ....