Opinion ID: 2465579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proof of payment

Text: The Pearrows argue the chancellor's finding that they failed to show payment was clearly erroneous. In his order, the chancellor stated: The defense of payment is an affirmative defense and the burden is on Defendants to prove payment by a preponderance. After considering the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, the Court is of the opinion that Defendants have not met their burden of proof. Ark.R.Civ.P. 52(a) provides, in part: Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous (clearly against the preponderance of the evidence), and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. It is apparent that the chancellor did not find the testimony in favor of the Pearrows to have been credible, and we have no reason to say his evaluation was clearly erroneous. Hackworth v. First National Bank of Crossett, 265 Ark. 668, 580 S.W.2d 465 (1979); Massey v. Price, 252 Ark. 617, 480 S.W.2d 337 (1972). Affirmed. HICKMAN, J., not participating.