Opinion ID: 2821956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Randy’s Income

Text: [¶14] Christine argues that the court clearly erred in finding that Randy’s gross income would be $50,000 per year when “[t]he most competent evidence on the record was not Randy’s” evidence but hers. She argues that the court abused its discretion in its child support and spousal support awards by basing them on the erroneous finding. [¶15] We review factual findings for clear error, which exists only if “there is no competent evidence in the record to support” the finding, the finding “is based on a clear misapprehension by the trial court of the meaning of the evidence,” or if “the force and effect of the evidence, taken as a total entity, 9 rationally persuades to a certainty that the finding is so against the great preponderance of the believable evidence that it does not represent the truth and right of the case.” In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, ¶ 29, 55 A.3d 463 (quotation marks omitted). “Factual findings should not be overturned in an appellate proceeding simply because an alternative finding also finds support in the evidence. We defer to the trial court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility and its resolution of conflicts in testimony.” Gordon v. Cheskin, 2013 ME 113, ¶ 12, 82 A.3d 1221 (citation omitted) (quotation marks omitted). [¶16] Although Christine testified that Randy’s income is higher than $50,000 because his business takes in more money than he reports and because a case management order by the court ordered him to pay expenses totaling more than $50,000 per year, the court heard Randy testify that his income will be $50,000, and it is the trial court’s province to make credibility determinations between competing evidence. See id. Further, there is no indication that the court misapprehended the evidence before it, nor does the record persuade us to a certainty that the finding “does not represent the truth and right of the case.” See In re A.M., 2012 ME 118, ¶ 29, 55 A.3d 463. Therefore, the court did not clearly err by finding that Randy’s gross income was $50,000 per year, and did not abuse its discretion by relying on that finding in its child support and spousal support awards. 10