ore terms rule in Alabama

2010See also Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So.2d 408, 410 (Ala.1986) (“The ore terms rule is grounded upon the principle that when the trial court hears oral testimony it has an opportunity to evaluate the demeanor and credibility of witnesses.”).

2009As this Court has stated, “ ‘ “The ore terms rule is grounded upon the principle that when the trial court hears oral testimony it has an opportunity to evaluate the demeanor and credibility of witnesses.” Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So.2d 408, 410 (Ala.1986).

2015Foster v. Foster, 86 So.3d 1009, 1014-15 (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (citing Hall v. Mazzone, 486 So.2d 408, 410 (Ala.1986)).

2009The ore terms standard of review, succinctly stated, is as follows: “ ‘ “[W]here the evidence has been [presented] ore tenus, a presumption of correctness attends the trial court’s conclusion on issues of fact, and this Court will not disturb the trial court’s conclusion unless it is clearly erroneous and against the great weight of the evidence, but will affirm the judgment if, under any reasonable aspect, it is supported by credible evidence.” ’ “Reed v. Board of Trs. for Alabama State Univ., 778 So.2d 791, 795 (Ala. 2000) (quoting Raidt v. Crane, 342 So.2d 358, 360 (Ala.1977)).

2009Co., Inc. v. Hendrix, 568 So.2d 752, 756 (Ala.1990)).

2009See also, Beavers v. Walker County, 645 So.2d 1365, 1372 (Ala.1994) (‘[W]here the facts are not disputed the ore terms standard does not apply.’). ‘ “[WJhen a trial court sits in judgment on facts that are undisputed, an appellate court will determine whether the trial court misapplied the law to those undisputed facts.” ’ Harris v. McKenzie, 703 So.2d 309, 313 (Ala.1997) (quoting Craig Constr.

2009See also, Beavers v. Walker County, 645 So.2d 1365, 1372 (Ala.1994) (‘[W]here the facts are not disputed the ore terms standard does not apply.’). ‘ “[WJhen a trial court sits in judgment on facts that are undisputed, an appellate court will determine whether the trial court misapplied the law to those undisputed facts.” ’ Harris v. McKenzie, 703 So.2d 309, 313 (Ala.1997) (quoting Craig Constr.

2009However, ‘that presumption [of correctness] has no application when the trial court is shown to have improperly applied the law to the facts.’ Ex parte Board of Zoning Adjustment of Mobile, 636 So.2d 415, 417 (Ala.1994).” Ross contends that the trial court erroneously placed on him the burden of proving, in effect, that the $17,000 promissory note had not been satisfied as a prerequisite to exercising his right as a junior mortgagee to redeem the Marshall County property.

2009Thus, 'while we must presume under the ore terms rule that the trial court’s factual findings are correct, that rule does not relieve this Court of its responsibility to ensure that those facts clearly and convincingly warrant the termination of parental rights.” 971 So.2d at 8-9 (emphasis added).

2009In this case, the burden was on the great-aunt, as the party petitioning to terminate parental rights, to present evidence in support of each part of the two-pronged test discussed in Ex parte Beasley, supra. Ex parte T.V., supra. The only evidence presented at the termination hearing was the testimony of the father.

2009The ore terms standard of review, succinctly stated, is as follows: “ ‘ “[W]here the evidence has been [presented] ore tenus, a presumption of correctness attends the trial court’s conclusion on issues of fact, and this Court will not disturb the trial court’s conclusion unless it is clearly erroneous and against the great weight of the evidence, but will affirm the judgment if, under any reasonable aspect, it is supported by credible evidence.” ’ “Reed v. Board of Trs. for Alabama State Univ., 778 So.2d 791, 795 (Ala. 2000) (quoting Raidt v. Crane, 342 So.2d 358, 360 (Ala.1977)).

2001See, Gray v. Reynolds, 514 So.2d 973 (Ala.1987); King v. Travelers Ins.

1989In such cases the wisdom of, and the need for, the ore terms rule are evident.’ ” Wallace v. Putman, 495 So.2d 1072, 1075-76 (Ala.1986) (citations omitted).