In State v. Provost, a court of appeals reverses a trial court's grant of a new trial because it was premised on a reason not pleaded in the motion. Why did the trial court even state a reason for granting the new trial? The appeals court quotes the trial court's "findings of fact and conclusions of law" without comment.

How does this not violate TRAP 21.8(b)? ("In ruling on a motion for new trial, the court must not summarize, discuss or comment on the evidence."

On several occasions, I have listened to trial judges comment on their MNT rulings, despite acknowledging the prohibition. I have always wanted to attack the behavior on appeal but, alas, cross-appeals have not been necessary!