Opinion ID: 1854358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: By disregarding the proper legal standards, the lower court has effectively waived the presumption of correctness in this Court's review of its decision.

Text: As Justice Stuart stresses in the main opinion and Justice Bolin and Justice Smith reiterate in their special concurrences, in a child-custody case in which evidence is presented ore tenus, this Court ordinarily may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. See Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322 (Ala.1996). Instead, as I noted above, the trial court is accorded a presumption of correctness on appeal, Ex parte Perkins, 646 So.2d 46, 47 (Ala.1994), due, in the words of Chief Justice Moore, to the trial court's unique position to directly observe the witnesses and to assess their demeanor and credibility. Ex parte Fann, 810 So.2d 631, 633 (Ala.2001). Although I agree with my colleagues in their summary of the law to this extent, I believe their recitation to be incomplete because it omits reference to the circumstance by which the lower court forfeits any presumption of correctness. As Justice Stuart wrote earlier this year, The ore tenus rule does not ... cloak with a presumption of correctness a trial judge's conclusions of law or the incorrect application of law to the facts. Waltman v. Rowell, 913 So.2d 1083, 1086 (Ala.2005) (citing Griggs v. Driftwood Landing, Inc., 620 So.2d 582, 586 (Ala.1993)). See, also, Ex parte Board of Zoning Adjustment of Mobile, 636 So.2d 415, 418 (Ala.1994) (When a trial court improperly applies the law to the facts, the presumption of correctness otherwise applicable to the trial court's judgment has no effect.). Instead, this Court's review of conclusions of the law and the application of the law to the facts is de novo. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Skelton, 675 So.2d 377, 379 (Ala.1996). In the instant case, because the lower court impermissibly altered the standards established by this Court to reach the extrajurisdictional outcome it desired, it has arrived at incorrect conclusions of law and has improperly applied the law to the facts. It has, thereby, waived its right to a presumption of correctness upon this Court's review.