Opinion ID: 2451811
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: But viewed together, the superior court's factual findings regarding inventory and storage appear inconsistent.

Text: We will not disturb the factual findings of a trial court unless they are clearly erroneous. One sign of such error is an inconsistency between two factual findings even if each one, standing alone, would be sufficiently supported by the record so as not to constitute clear error. [6] In this case, the trial court found both that PGSC could reasonably conclude ... that [Foster] had gotten what she thought was important to keep, and that PGSC reasonably believed that Ms. Foster wanted some of that stuff and that, therefore, it was necessary to retain it. The first finding supports the superior court's conclusion that PGSC's statutorily inadequate inventory did not result in damages to Davis's estate. The second finding supports the court's conclusion that PGSC's use of paid storage did not breach its duty to Davis. But it may not have been reasonable for PGSC to have believed that there was nothing in the house of value to Foster while placing the items in costly storage because of their high value. PGSC cannot be allowed to present its failure to inventory as harmless by asserting there was nothing valuable in the house and then, in the next breath, defend its use of a costly storage facility by asserting that the valuable items in the house required preservation. On remand, the superior court must clarify or otherwise resolve this apparent inconsistency.