Court Opinion

ID: 9718109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:17:10.277706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:57.356730
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority opinion that affirms the trial court’s determination of child custody. I dissent from the majority opinion that finds the antenuptial agreement is valid and enforceable.
Our standard of review in this case is clearly a strict standard of review:
A reviewing court must determine whether evidence presented below can serve as a rational basis for the trial court’s decision. However, the reviewing court will neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of witnesses in making this determination. In applying this strict standard of review, the court of appeals will consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s disposition and reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom. To obtain reversal, it must be shown that the trial court abused its discretion in arriving at its decision. Rose v. Rose (1988), Ind.App., 526 N.E.2d 281, 234. (citations omitted).
The trial court listened to testimony during the course of four days. All of the evidence pertaining to the antenuptial agreement was before the trial court to be weighed and assessed before the trial court made its decision. The trial court determined that the agreement was not valid and not enforceable by listening to all of the evidence, considering all of the exhibits submitted to the court and observing the demeanor of the witnesses. In the face of conflicting evidence, it is improper for an appellate court to reweigh the evidence presented to the trial court. Parr v. Parr (1994), Ind., 644 N.E.2d 548, 550, (overturning our decision in a suit to determine whether an antenuptial agreemeiit was valid on the basis that the decision was arrived at by reweighing the evidence).
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.