Opinion ID: 888026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶ 13 We review conclusions of law, including statutory interpretation, de novo. James Talcott Const. v. P & D, 2006 MT 188, ¶ 26, 333 Mont. 107, ¶ 26, 141 P.3d 1200, ¶ 26. ¶ 14 We review findings of fact to determine whether the findings are clearly erroneous using a three-part test. First, we review the record to determine if the findings are supported by substantial evidence; second, if the findings are supported by substantial evidence, we will determine if the trial court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence; and third, if substantial evidence exists and the effect of the evidence has not been misapprehended, the Court may still conclude that a finding is clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves the Court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. James Talcott Const., ¶ 26 (citations omitted). ¶ 15 We review a district court's award of prejudgment interest de novo. James Talcott Const., ¶ 28 (citations omitted). ¶ 16 We review a district court's order granting or denying attorney fees and costs to determine whether the court abused its discretion. James Talcott Const., ¶ 27 (citations omitted).