Opinion ID: 1825850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: The ore tenus standard of review applies with respect to the judgment entered on the UM claim. We have described that standard as follows: `When a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error.' . . . `The ore tenus rule is grounded upon the principle that when the trial court hears oral testimony it has an opportunity to evaluate the demeanor and credibility of witnesses. . . . The rule applies to disputed issues of fact, whether the dispute is based entirely upon oral testimony or upon a combination of oral testimony and documentary evidence. . . . ` . . . [Further], this Court will not disturb the trial court's conclusion unless it is clearly erroneous and against the great weight of the evidence. . . . ' . . . However, `that presumption [of correctness] has no application when the trial court is shown to have improperly applied the law to the facts.' . . .  Robinson v. Evans, 959 So.2d 634, 637 (Ala.2006). In actions like this where the trial court does not make express findings, we also have stated: [T]his Court will assume that the trial judge made those findings necessary to support the judgment. . . . Under the ore tenus rule, the trial court's judgment and all implicit findings necessary to support it carry a presumption of correctness and will not be reversed unless `found to be plainly and palpably wrong.' . . . `The trial court's judgment in such a case will be affirmed, if, under any reasonable aspect of the testimony, there is credible evidence to support the judgment.' Transamerica Commercial Fin. Corp. v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 608 So.2d 375, 378 (Ala.1992).