§ 3.7.2.6.5.8 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgments.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.7.2.6.5.8 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgments. The court of appeals defers to the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. See In re Indenture of Trust Dated Jan. 13, 1964, 235 Ariz. 40, 48, ¶ 21, 326 P.3d 307, 315 (App. 2014); FL Receivables v. Ariz. Mills, L.L.C., 230 Ariz. 160, 166, ¶ 24, 281 P.3d 1028, 1034 (App. 2012).

However, the appellate court is not constrained by the legal conclusions from facts found or inferred in the superior court’s judgment, nor by its findings in questions of law or mixed questions of law and fact. See Calisi v. Unified Fin. Servs., LLC, 232 Ariz. 103, 106, ¶ 13, 302 P.3d 628, 631 (App. 2013). It instead draws its own legal conclusions from facts found or implied in the judgment. See In re Marriage of Gibbs, 227 Ariz. 403, 406, ¶ 6, 258 P.3d 221, 224 (App. 2011); Strait v. Strait, 223 Ariz. 500, 502, ¶ 6, 224 P.3d 997, 999 (App. 2010); Engel v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504, 510, ¶ 21, 212 P.3d 842, 848 (App. 2009). It reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. See In re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964, 235 Ariz. 40, 48, ¶ 21, 326 P.3d 307, 315 (App. 2014); Sholes v. Fernando, 228 Ariz. 455, 458, ¶ 6, 268 P.3d 1112, 1115 (App. 2011).

When an appeal presents a mixed question of law and fact, the court of appeals defers to the superior court’s factual findings but reviews de novo its legal conclusions. See In re MH 2008-001752, 222 Ariz. 567, 569 n.3, ¶ 7, 218 P.3d 1024, 1026 n.3 (App. 2009). It is not bound by the trial court’s conclusions of law that combine both fact and law when there is an error as to the law. See Egan v. Fridlund-Horne, 221 Ariz. 229, 232, ¶ 8, 211 P.3d 1213, 1216 (App. 2009).

The appellate court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, unless they are clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses. See R. Civ. P. 52(a); Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 222 Ariz. 48, 51, ¶ 11, 213 P.3d 197, 200 (App. 2009; Spaulding v. Pouliot, 218 Ariz. 196, 199, ¶ 8, 181 P.3d 243, 246 (App. 2008); In re MH 2006-000749, 214 Ariz. 318, 321, ¶ 13, 152 P.3d 1201, 1204 (App. 2007) (clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence). Where an inference that is sought is the presence of a fact, the trial court weighs the evidence and resolves any conflicting facts, expert opinions and inferences therefrom. See Shooter v. Farmer, 235 Ariz. 199, 200, ¶ 4, 330 P.3d 956, 957 (2014).

A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence exists to support it, even if substantial conflicting evidence exists. See John C. Lincoln Hosp. v. Maricopa Cty., 208 Ariz. 532, 537, ¶ 10, 96 P.3d 530, 535 (App. 2004); Kocher v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 206 Ariz. 480, 482, ¶ 9, 80 P.3d 287, 289 (App. 2003). The court of appeals does not reweigh conflicting evidence or redetermine the preponderance of the evidence. It instead examines the record only to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support the trial court’s action. See In re Estate of Van Der Zee, 228 Ariz. 257, 260, ¶ 20, 265 P.3d 439, 442 (App. 2011).

Substantial evidence is evidence that would cause a reasonable person to reach the trial court’s result. See In re Estate of Pouser, 193 Ariz. 574, 579, ¶ 13, 975 P.2d 704, 709 (1999). The court of appeals will not second-guess or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of disputed fact. See Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 220, ¶ 13, 245 P.3d 898, 905 (App. 2010). Instead, in applying the clearly erroneous standard to factual findings, it will defer to any factual findings explicitly or implicitly made, affirming them so long as they are supported by reasonable evidence. See Pueblo Santa Fe Townhomes Owners’ Ass’n v. Transcon. Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 13, 18, ¶ 19, 178 P.3d 485, 490 (App. 2008); Kocher, 206 Ariz. at 482, ¶ 9, 80 P.3d at 289.

The weight to give conflicting evidence and witness credibility is factual, warranting deferral to the trial court. See Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343, 347-48, ¶ 13, 972 P.2d 676, 680-81 (App. 1998). A finder of fact is not bound by the uncontradicted testimony of an interested party. See Kocher, 206 Ariz. at 482, ¶ 10, 80 P.3d at 289. If a trial court’s decision is based upon a determination of disputed questions of fact or credibility, a balancing of competing interests, pursuit of a recognized judicial policy, or any other basis to which the appellate court should give deference, the appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the trial court’s. See Daystar Invs., L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cty. Treasurer, 207 Ariz. 569, 572, ¶ 13, 88 P.3d 1181, 1184 (App. 2004).

A trial court’s findings will be sustained on appeal if they are supported by substantial evidence, even if the required standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence, because the determination of whether that evidence is “clear and convincing” is committed to the trial court. See Estate of Page v. Litzenburg,177 Ariz. 84, 92, 865 P.2d 128, 136 (App. 1993).

A finding of fact is...