Opinion ID: 2516894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶ 21 Fradan argues that the trial court's factual findings are `clearly erroneous' and based upon an apparent hostility towards FRADAN that was in turn based upon the court's misunderstanding of a discovery dispute. To mount a successful attack upon a trial court's findings of fact, an appellant must first marshal all the evidence in support of the finding and then demonstrate that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding even when viewing it in a light most favorable to the court below. Willard Pease Oil & Gas Co. v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Co., 899 P.2d 766, 773 (Utah 1995); see also Consolidation Coal v. Div. of State Lands & Forestry, 886 P.2d 514, 522 (Utah 1994); Doelle v. Bradley, 784 P.2d 1176, 1178 (Utah 1989); Reid v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 776 P.2d 896, 899 (Utah 1989). In other words, an appellant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a finding of fact has the burden of combing the record for and compiling all of the evidence that supports the finding of fact and explaining why that evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding of fact. ¶ 22 An appellant fails to meet its marshaling burden if it merely restates or reviews the evidence that supports an alternate finding or a finding contrary to the trial court's established finding of fact. In some instances, as in this case, an appellant, in attempting to meet its marshaling burden, also might assert that the record does not contain any evidence in support of a particular finding of fact. Under such circumstances, the heavy burden of marshaling all of the evidence in support of the finding of fact does not shift to the appellee in order to refute the appellant's assertion of the absence of evidence. Rather, the appellee, when confronted with such a no evidence sufficiency challenge, need only point to a scintilla of credible evidence from the record that supports the finding of fact in order to overcome the appellant's no evidence assertion and to demonstrate that the appellant has failed to meet its marshaling burden. ¶ 23 Initially, throughout Fradan's challenge to the trial court's findings of fact, Fradan continually repeats its allegation that all of [the] findings are the result of an unjust, punitive, and abusive action taking [sic] by the trial court based upon an unlitigated discovery dispute. Despite its repetition of this assertion, Fradan does not point to any evidence in the record or elsewhere indicating that Fradan's assertion of bias or retributive motivation on the part of the trial court is anything but a conclusory allegation. Such a bald assertion, without more, does not mount a compelling challenge to the correctness of the trial court's findings of fact or constrain us to reverse those findings. ¶ 24 In its attempt to meet its marshaling burden, Fradan restates what it characterizes as the trial court's hasty and cryptic findings of fact. While we agree that the trial court's findings of fact are not a model of clarity, they are sufficiently clear for us to review. After restating the trial court's findings of fact, Fradan then proceeds to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying certain of those findings. ¶ 25 Instead of reviewing every challenged finding of fact, some of which are wholly irrelevant given our interpretation and application of the buy-back statute, [3] see supra part I, we limit our review to only the material, determinative findings of fact. ¶ 26 As to the material findings of fact, Fradan has not met its heavy burden of marshaling. Consolidation Coal, 886 P.2d at 522. In its memoranda of law, Fradan does not set forth evidence in support of the trial court's findings; rather, Fradan merely cites to portions of the testimony that favor its position or argues that there is no evidence to support the trial court's finding. Fradan's failure to marshal the evidence and demonstrate that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous in light of the evidence allows us to affirm the court's findings on that basis alone. State v. Widdison, 2001 UT 60, ¶ 61, 28 P.3d 1278. In any event, the trial court's material findings of fact are supported by sufficient evidence. ¶ 27 The trial court found that the initial business relationship that was created with [Wilson Supply d.b.a.] Pro Power was intended to be a manufacturer to a retailer direct. Fradan points to certain evidence in the record supporting the finding and argues that it is far too slim for the court to make the leap of faith that FRADAN contracted directly with each separate retail outlet. [4] Fradan, however, ignores the testimony of Wilson Supply's president Brett Wilson that (1) Fradan's sales manager first approached Brett Wilson at Wilson Supply's Pro Power retail store in Murray, Utah, (2) Brett Wilson at that time explained to Fradan's sales manager that Wilson Supply wanted to retail Fradan's products through its retail stores, and (3) Brett Wilson and Fradan's sales manager orally agreed at that time that Wilson Supply would sell Fradan's products at retail. This testimony is sufficient to support the trial court's finding. ¶ 28 The trial court also found that Fradan's product was marketed by [Wilson Supply `d.b.a.'] Pro Power at retail and that all of the sales that were engaged in by [Wilson Supply `d.b.a.'] Pro Power Equipment were retail final sales to ultimate users. Fradan challenges this finding of fact only to the extent it implies that Fradan dealt directly with the three Pro Power retail stores, not with Wilson Supply. It does not deny that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Pro Power retailed Fradan's product. Fradan instead argues that the trial court did not find that Wilson Supply retailed Fradan's products and that there was no evidence in the record to support such a finding in any event. Again, Fradan's argument fails because Wilson Supply and Pro Power were the same entity. Therefore, the trial court's finding that Pro Power retailed Fradan's products also means it had found that Wilson Supply had retailed Fradan's products, so we affirm that finding. ¶ 29 The remainder of the trial court's findings of fact challenged by Fradan are not relevant to the application of the statute, and therefore, we need not review them. The trial court's relevant and material findings of fact were supported by sufficient evidence and are not clearly erroneous.