“[findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary on decisions of any motion or order ex mero motu only when requested by a party and as provided by Rule 41(b).” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2) (2007). A trial court is not required to make written findings of fact when ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion, unless requested to do so by a party. Where the trial court does not make findings of fact in its order denying the motion to set aside the judgment, the question on appeal is whether, on the evidence, before it, the court could have made findings of fact sufficient to support its legal conclusion[.] Creasman v. Creasman, 152 N.C. App. 119, 124, 566 S.E.2d 725, 729 (2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Grant v. Cox, 106 N.C. App. 122, 415 S.E.2d 378 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Texas Western Financial Corp. v. Mann, 36
holding that trial court made sufficient findings of fact when it dismissed appeal holding that court is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying  3582 motion holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case holding that though a trial court is not required to make findings of fact absent a request whether there exists sufficient evidence to support the order ruling on a motion to set aside a judgment is fully reviewable holding that when ruling on a motion under rule 60b1 the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact unless a request is made