Most of the civil trials that take place in Tennessee are nonjury trials. In those cases, the trial judge (or chancellor) makes credibility decisions of each of the witnesses, determines the facts from the believed testimony and accredited documents and other evidence, and applies the law to those facts.
The Tennessee Supreme Court has this to say about the power of a trial judge to make credibility decisions about the testimony of witnesses:
Unlike appellate courts, trial courts are able to observe witnesses as they testify and to assess their demeanor, which best situates trial judges to evaluate witness credibility. See State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn.1990); Bowman v. Bowman, 836 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn.Ct.App.1991). Thus, trial courts are in the most favorable position to resolve factual disputes hinging on credibility determinations. See Tenn–Tex Properties v. Brownell–Electro, Inc., 778 S.W.2d 423, 425–26 (Tenn.1989); Mitchell v. Archibald, 971 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998). Accordingly, appellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 315, 315–16 (Tenn.1987); Bingham v. Dyersburg Fabrics Co., Inc., 567 S.W.2d 169, 170 (Tenn.1978).
Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tenn.1999).
And here is a recent statement of the Tennessee Court of Appeals on the same issue:
Tennessee appellate courts “afford trial courts considerable deference when reviewing issues that hinge on the witnesses’ credibility because trial courts are ‘uniquely positioned to observe the demeanor and conduct of witnesses.’” Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2014) (quoting State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 217 (Tenn. 2000)). Appellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s credibility determination absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d at 692 (quoting Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999)); Kincade v. Kincade, No. M2017-00797-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 1631415, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2018). For evidence to be clear and convincing, it must eliminate any “serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.” State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 404 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208, 221 (Tenn. 2009)).
Barnes v. Barnes, No. M2022-00328-COA-R3-CV, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2023).
Is it possible that an appellate court will overturn a trial judge’s finding about the credibility of a witness? Sure. It is possible that Donald Trump can give a speech without insulting the intelligence or integrity of another human. But is it likely? Not even close.
So, if you win a nonjury case you need to do what you can to have the trial judge make on-the-record credibility findings about your evidence. And, if your opponent appeals, you need to emphasize (citing decisions like those above) that those credibility findings are entitled to great deference in the appellate courts.
And if you lose a nonjury case and the important credibility findings are adverse to your client, you better be able to point to an error of law if you are thinking of successfully appealing the case.