The opinion in the recent case of Lopez v. Sharp, No. M2022-00679-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2023) has a great summary of the standard of review that will be applied by an appellate court reviewing the decision of a trial judge in a nonjury trial.
Our review of the trial court’s judgment following a non-jury trial is de novo upon the record, with a presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 204 (Tenn. 2012). “In order for the evidence to preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, the evidence must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). The trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 426 (Tenn. 2011); Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011).
Id. at *5, citing Logan v. Cannon, 602 S.W.3d 363, 378 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019).
BirdDog Law has two books that set forth recent statements of the appellate standard of review for over 140 civil and 140 criminal law issues. The books are currently available at no charge, but will become a subscription product in the near future. Click on the links to review Grading Papers – Civil and Grading Papers – Criminal.