Opinion ID: 1259078
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Debt from Robert's Sister

Text: In 1980, Robert's sister evidently experienced difficulty making payments on her house in Bexar, Texas. To prevent her from losing the house, Robert and Rita bought it from her, paying $2,000 and taking over payments. They kept the house as a rental property until Robert's sister's financial situation improved; then, in 1990, they reconveyed it to her. The trial court concluded that, as a result of these transactions, Robert's sister owed the Davilas $2,000. The court awarded Robert the right to collect the debt. Robert argues that the trial court clearly erred in setting a $2,000 value on his unsupported hope that he might someday be paid by his sister. Again, however, Robert's argument draws selectively from the record. At trial, the parties offered conflicting testimony about the house. Robert testified that he purchased the house from his sister when she could not make the payments and reconveyed it in 1990. When asked whether his sister owed him any money from the transaction, Robert stated, She did, but it's been so long that nothing's come of it. He testified that [t]here was really no promise to pay anything, it was just what ... she could pay. I was hoping to get back at least $2,000, but I didn't even get that. In contrast, Rita testified that Robert's sister owed them $10,000 for the transaction, indicating that Robert's sister might have paid the money had Robert fought her for it, but that Robert didn't want to. [I]t is the function of the trial court, not of this court, to judge witnesses' credibility and to weigh conflicting evidence. Parker v. Northern Mixing Co., 756 P.2d 881, 892 (Alaska 1988). As stated previously, we will not set aside a finding as clearly erroneous unless we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Williams v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 650 P.2d 343, 347 (Alaska 1982). From the foregoing testimony, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Robert's sister owed the Davilas money as a result of the purchase and reconveyance of her Texas home and that the debt remained unpaid only because of Robert's reluctance to press the issue. Giving Robert the benefit of the doubt, the court could have also reasonably concluded that the remaining debt amounted to $2,000. We find no error and affirm the trial court's finding.