The letter therefore was before the trial court and could be considered as a basis for its findings. Consequently, Mother's first point must be denied. She argues that the trial court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the weight of the evidence and consequently, the case should be remanded for a new hearing to establish the child support arrearage. Further, deference will be given to the trial court's determination of credibility, viewing the evidence and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the decree and disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. As the trial court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law, all facts are considered on appeal as having been found in accordance with the result reached, and the trial court's judgment will be affirmed if it is correct on any reasonable theory supported by the evidence.
Mother is correct in part.
The hearing was to determine an arrearage amount as of August 13, 1997. Mother makes several other arguments in an effort to show that the trial court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. Mother also argues that Father's testimony at the hearing was so contradictory as to have no probative value and that her evidence completely contradicts both Father's testimony at the hearing and his letter calculating the arrearage owed. These arguments, however, are without merit. The record indicates that the family court held a hearing to determine the child support arrearage owed by Father as of August 13, 1997.