Court Opinion

ID: 9796872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:07:24.186475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:03.486914
License: Public Domain

GABBARD, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
1 1 I dissent to the Majority's opinion that this case should be remanded for the purpose of taking additional evidence on the issue of the rent and farm income.
T2 Mother testified that she had no net income from her rent house and farm crops because expenses exceeded income. To support this statement, she produced tax returns for the last six years. Father had the opportunity to cross-examine her regarding this evidence, and to present evidence on his own behalf. His contention that she receives an annual income of approximately $9,000 did not take into account her expenses and was otherwise unsupported by any documentation. The trial court had sufficient evidence to make a decision regarding this issue, and decided in Mother's favor. When there is conflicting evidence on an issue of fact, we defer to the trial court, which is in the best position to observe the behavior and demean- or of the witnesses and to gauge their credibility. Mueggenborg v. Walling, 1992 OK 121, 836 P.2d 112. The trial court was persuaded by Mother's testimony and evidence, and was unpersuaded by Father's testimony.
13 Because the trial court's decision on this issue is supported by the greater weight of the evidence, I find no reason for remand. I would affirm in toto.