Title: Harvey v. Irvin
Citation: 401 P.2d 266
Docket Number: 20548
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: March 8, 1965

401 P.2d 266 (1965) Leonard J. HARVEY and James G. Harvey, Plaintiffs in Error, v. G. E. IRVIN, Defendant in Error. No. 20548. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. March 8, 1965. Rehearing Denied May 10, 1965. Stinemeyer &amp; Stinemeyer, Canon City, for plaintiffs in error. Robert G. Fredrickson, Canon City, for defendant in error. McWILLIAMS, Justice. Dr. Irvin brought an action against James Harvey and the latter's son, Leonard Harvey, seeking cancellation of a certain lease and option to purchase agreement (hereinafter called the agreement) on the ground of fraud and deceit, and on the additional ground that the Harveys abused a confidential relationship then existing between the parties, to the end that the Harveys obtained an option to buy for $100,000 certain ranch properties worth $155,000. The Harveys by answer denied any wrongdoing on their part and alleged that the agreement as recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Fremont County truly and correctly represented the understanding and intention of the parties. The matter was tried to the court, sitting without a jury, and the trial court found generally for Dr. Irvin and against the Harveys and accordingly entered a decree canceling the agreement. In support of its *267 judgment the trial court made rather elaborate findings and conclusions, the gist of which was that the agreement resulted from fraud, deceit and concealment on the part of Leonard Harvey and that the agreement as recorded did not represent the intention of the parties and was moreover grossly inequitable. By writ of error the Harveys now seek reversal of this judgment. The Harveys urge that the several findings and conclusions of the trial court, as well as the judgment therein, are totally unsupported by any competent or credible evidence. Hence our only task is to determine whether there is evidence in the record to support the judgment of the trial court. If there be such supporting evidence, the judgment under well-established rules must be affirmed even though there may well be other evidence to the contrary, since the trial courtand not this Courtis the fact-finding body. We have carefully examined the rather lengthy reporter's transcript and conclude that there is evidence, much evidence in fact, to support the judgment of the trial court. Admittedly, there is evidence to the contrary, but such only served to create a controverted issue of fact, all of which is only typical grist for the factfinding mill. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful litigant in the trial court, as we must, there is evidence in the record to establish the following: The foregoing is by no means a recital of all the evidence adduced by Dr. Irvin in support of his claim, but is deemed sufficient to demonstrate convincingly that there was evidence to support the trial court's finding of fraud and deception. There was, of course, evidence to the contrary. Both Harveys categorically denied any fraud or wrongdoing on their part. Leonard Harvey stated that it actually was the intention of both himself and Dr. Irvin that the agreement was to cover both the North and South Ranches. Under these circumstances with Dr. Irvin crying "fraud" and the Harveys flatly denying it, it is readily apparent that the credibility of the several parties to this controversy was of unusual importance. And determination of credibility is, of course, a matter exclusively reserved for the trier of the facts and not the prerogative of this Court. No more need be said to demonstrate that this, then, is but another instance of a sharply controverted issue of fact which under established rules is a matter to be resolved by the trier of the facts, namely, in this instance the trial court. It is axiomatic that where, as here, there is competent evidence to support the findings of a trial court, this Court is not permitted to indulge in any judicial "second guessing." See Anderson-Randolph Co., Inc. v. Taylor, 146 Colo. 170, 361 P.2d 142. The judgment is affirmed. MOORE and SCHAUER, JJ., not participating.