ore tenus rule in Alabama

2025Co. v. Skelton, 675 So. 2d 377, 379 (Ala. 1996)). " ' " 'The ore tenus 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).

2025"The ore tenus 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).

2018Regarding the applicable standard of review, the Alabama Supreme Court stated, in pertinent part, as follows: " ' "Where the evidence before the trial court was undisputed the ore tenus rule is inapplicable, and the Supreme Court will sit in judgment on *885 the evidence de novo, indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court's application of the law to those facts." Stiles v. Brown , 380 So.2d 792 , 794 (Ala. 1980) (citations omitted).

2018Regarding the applicable standard of review, the Alabama Supreme Court stated, in pertinent part, as follows: " ' "Where the evidence before the trial court was undisputed the ore tenus rule is inapplicable, and the Supreme Court will sit in judgment on *885 the evidence de novo, indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court's application of the law to those facts." Stiles v. Brown , 380 So.2d 792 , 794 (Ala. 1980) (citations omitted).

2025The ore tenus standard or rule is grounded on the principle that, in hearing such testimony, the trial court has the opportunity to evaluate the demeanor and credibility of witnesses, Reed v. Board of Trs. for Alabama State Univ., 778 So. 2d 791, 795 (Ala. 2000), 'and to assign weight to their testimony.' Wehle v. Bradley, 195 So. 3d 928, 934 (Ala. 2015).

2025"Questions of 30 CL-2023-0533 law are not subject to the ore tenus standard of review." Reed v. Board of Trustees for Alabama State Univ., 778 So. 2d 791 , 793 n.2 (Ala. 2000).

2025Furthermore, "the ore tenus standard of review has no application to a trial court's conclusions of law or its application of law to the facts; a trial court's ruling on a question of law carries no presumption of correctness on appeal." Ex parte J.E., 1 So. 3d 1002, 1008 (Ala. 2008) (citing Ex parte Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1994)).

2025Furthermore, "the ore tenus standard of review has no application to a trial court's conclusions of law or its application of law to the facts; a trial court's ruling on a question of law carries no presumption of correctness on appeal." Ex parte J.E., 1 So. 3d 1002, 1008 (Ala. 2008) (citing Ex parte Perkins, 646 So. 2d 46, 47 (Ala. 1994)).

2017However, " '[w]here the evidence before the trial court was undisputed the ore tenus rule is inapplicable, and the [appellate] Court will sit in judgment on the evidence de novo, indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court's application of the law to those facts.' " State v. Hill , 690 So.2d 1201 , 1203 (Ala. 1996), quoting Stiles v. Brown , 380 So.2d 792 , 794 (Ala. 1980). " ' "[W]hen the trial court improperly applies the law to the facts, no presumption of correctness exists as to the court's judgment." ' " Ex parte Jackson , 886 So.2d 155 , 159 (Ala. 2004), quoting Hill , 690 So.2

2015However, ‘ “[w]here the evidence before the trial court was undisputed the ore tenus rule is inapplicable, and the [appellate] Court will sit in judgment on the evidence de novo, indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court’s application of the law to those facts.”’ State v. Hill, 690 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Ala.1996), quoting Stiles v. Brown, 380 So.2d 792, 794 (Ala.1980). ‘ “ ‘[W]hen the trial court improperly applies the law to the facts, no presumption of correctness exists as to the court’s judgment.”” Ex parte Jackson, 886 So.2d 155, 159 (Ala.2004), quoting Hill, 690 So.2d at 1203 , qu

2016“Because appellate courts do not weigh evidence, particularly when ‘the assessment of the credibility of witnesses is involved,’ Knight [v. Beverly Health Care Bay Manor Health Care Ctr.], 820 So.2d [92] at 102 [ (Ala.2001) ], we defer to the trial court’s factual findings. ‘The ore tenus rule reflects this deference; it accords a presumption of correctness to the trial court’s findings because of that court’s unique ability to observe the demeanor of witnesses.’ Id.; see also Fitzgerald v. Jeter, 428 So.2d 84, 85 (Ala.Civ.App.1983), and Ex parte Fann, 810 So.2d 631, 633 (Ala.2001).” J.C. v. S

2016See Dobbins v. Dobbins, 602 So.2d 900, 901 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) (“The reason for the ore tenus rule is [well established], i.e., that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses as they testified, to judge their credibility and demeanor, and to observe what this court cannot perceive from a written record.”).’ ” Fell v. Fell, 869 So.2d 486, 496 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (quoting Ex parte Fann, 810 So.2d 631, 638 (Ala.2001)).

2017However, " '[w]here the evidence before the trial court was undisputed the ore tenus rule is inapplicable, and the [appellate] Court will sit in judgment on the evidence de novo, indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court's application of the law to those facts.' " State v. Hill , 690 So.2d 1201 , 1203 (Ala. 1996), quoting Stiles v. Brown , 380 So.2d 792 , 794 (Ala. 1980). " ' "[W]hen the trial court improperly applies the law to the facts, no presumption of correctness exists as to the court's judgment." ' " Ex parte Jackson , 886 So.2d 155 , 159 (Ala. 2004), quoting Hill , 690 So.2

2017However, " '[w]here the evidence before the trial court was undisputed the ore tenus rule is inapplicable, and the [appellate] Court will sit in judgment on the evidence de novo, indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court's application of the law to those facts.' " State v. Hill , 690 So.2d 1201 , 1203 (Ala. 1996), quoting Stiles v. Brown , 380 So.2d 792 , 794 (Ala. 1980). " ' "[W]hen the trial court improperly applies the law to the facts, no presumption of correctness exists as to the court's judgment." ' " Ex parte Jackson , 886 So.2d 155 , 159 (Ala. 2004), quoting Hill , 690 So.2

2025The ore tenus 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)).

2024The ore tenus standard of review, succinctly stated, is as follows: " ' " '[W]here the evidence has been [presented] ore tenus, a presumption of 22 SC-2022-0736 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 (Al

2026"Additionally, the ore tenus rule does not extend to cloak with a presumption of correctness a trial judge's conclusions of law or the incorrect application of law to the facts." Waltman v. Rowell, 913 So. 2d at 1086 .' " ' " P.T.S. v. S.S., 406 So. 3d 109 , 113 (Ala. Civ.

2026Standard of Review " '[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, its findings on disputed facts are presumed correct and its judgment based on those findings will not be reversed unless the judgment is palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust.' Philpot v. State, 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002). ' "The presumption of correctness, however, is rebuttable and may be overcome where there is insufficient evidence presented to the trial court to sustain its judgment." ' Waltman v. Rowell, 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Ala. 2005) (quoting Dennis v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 (Ala. 1985)). 'Additionally, th

2026The trial court's decision to grant the writ of quo warranto was based on evidence presented in the December 18, 2025, hearing that included live testimony from the council members, Stephenson, and Banks. " 'Because the trial court heard "live" testimony at the hearing it conducted in this case, we review its findings of fact under the ore tenus standard of review. " 'Under the ore tenus rule, a trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct and its judgment will be reversed only if plainly or palpably wrong or against the preponderance of the evidence.' " Ex parte Baron Servs., Inc., 874

2026The trial court's decision to grant the writ of quo warranto was based on evidence presented in the December 18, 2025, hearing that included live testimony from the council members, Stephenson, and Banks. " 'Because the trial court heard "live" testimony at the hearing it conducted in this case, we review its findings of fact under the ore tenus standard of review. " 'Under the ore tenus rule, a trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct and its judgment will be reversed only if plainly or palpably wrong or against the preponderance of the evidence.' " Ex parte Baron Servs., Inc., 874

2017However, " '[w]here the evidence before the trial court was undisputed the ore tenus rule is inapplicable, and the [appellate] Court will sit in judgment on the evidence de novo, indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court's application of the law to those facts.' " State v. Hill , 690 So.2d 1201 , 1203 (Ala. 1996), quoting Stiles v. Brown , 380 So.2d 792 , 794 (Ala. 1980). " ' "[W]hen the trial court improperly applies the law to the facts, no presumption of correctness exists as to the court's judgment." ' " Ex parte Jackson , 886 So.2d 155 , 159 (Ala. 2004), quoting Hill , 690 So.2

2015However, ‘ “[w]here the evidence before the trial court was undisputed the ore tenus rule is inapplicable, and the [appellate] Court will sit in judgment on the evidence de novo, indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court’s application of the law to those facts.”’ State v. Hill, 690 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Ala.1996), quoting Stiles v. Brown, 380 So.2d 792, 794 (Ala.1980). ‘ “ ‘[W]hen the trial court improperly applies the law to the facts, no presumption of correctness exists as to the court’s judgment.”” Ex parte Jackson, 886 So.2d 155, 159 (Ala.2004), quoting Hill, 690 So.2d at 1203 , qu

2026"Additionally, the ore tenus rule does not extend to cloak with a presumption of correctness a trial judge's conclusions of law or the incorrect application of law to the facts." Waltman v. Rowell, 913 So. 2d at 1086 .' "Retail Developers of Alabama, LLC v. East Gadsden Golf Club, Inc., 985 So. 2d 924, 929 (Ala. 2007). 'Questions of law are reviewed de novo.' Alabama Republican Party v. McGinley, 893 So. 2d 337, 342 (Ala. 2004)." Moultrie v. Wall, 172 So. 3d 828, 839 (Ala. 2015).

2024"Additionally, the ore tenus rule does not extend to cloak with a presumption of correctness a trial judge's conclusions of law or the incorrect application of law to the facts." Waltman v. Rowell, 913 So. 2d at 1086 .' "Retail Developers of Alabama, LLC v. East Gadsden Golf Club, Inc., 985 So. 2d 924, 929 (Ala. 2007)." Bond v. Estate of Pylant, 63 So. 3d 638, 643-44 (Ala. Civ.

2026Standard of Review " '[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, its findings on disputed facts are presumed correct and its judgment based on those findings will not be reversed unless the judgment is palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust.' Philpot v. State, 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002). ' "The presumption of correctness, however, is rebuttable and may be overcome where there is insufficient evidence presented to the trial court to sustain its judgment." ' Waltman v. Rowell, 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Ala. 2005) (quoting Dennis v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 (Ala. 1985)). 'Additionally, th

2024But ' " the ore tenus rule does not extend to cloak with a presumption of correctness a trial judge's conclusions of law or the incorrect application of law to the facts." ' Id. 5Notably, GPT also argues in its brief that we should reverse the trial court's decision in favor of MAC on its breach-of-contract claim based on MAC's alleged failure to comply with the terms of the Note.

2012However, ‘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). “ ‘The ore tenus standard of review extends to the trial court’s assessment of damages.’ Edwards v. Valentine, 926 So.2d 315, 325 (Ala.2005).

2010Ex parte Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Mobile, 636 So.2d 415 (Ala.1994).'" " 669 So.2d at 104 . `Where the evidence before the trial court was undisputed the ore tenus rule is inapplicable, and the Supreme Court will sit in judgment on the evidence de novo, indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court's application of the law to those facts.' *45 Stiles v. Brown, 380 So.2d 792, 794 (Ala. 1980) (citations omitted).

2026"The presumption of correctness [afforded under the ore tenus standard of review] ... is rebuttable and may be overcome where there is insufficient evidence presented to the trial court to sustain its judgment." Dennis v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 (Ala. 1985).

2026Standard of Review " '[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, its findings on disputed facts are presumed correct and its judgment based on those findings will not be reversed unless the judgment is palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust.' Philpot v. State, 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002). ' "The presumption of correctness, however, is rebuttable and may be overcome where there is insufficient evidence presented to the trial court to sustain its judgment." ' Waltman v. Rowell, 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Ala. 2005) (quoting Dennis v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 (Ala. 1985)). 'Additionally, th

2025Co. v. Skelton, 675 So. 2d 377, 379 (Ala. 1996)). " ' " 'The ore tenus 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).

2025Co. v. Skelton, 675 So. 2d 377 (Ala. 1996); Marvin's, Inc. v. Robertson, 608 So. 2d 391 (Ala. 1992); Gaston, 514 So. 2d at 878 ; Smith v. Style Advertising, Inc., 470 So. 2d 1194 (Ala. 1985); League v. McDonald, 355 So. 2d 695 (Ala. 1978). 'Questions of law are not subject to the ore tenus standard of review.' Reed v. Board of Trustees for Alabama State Univ., 778 So. 2d 791 , 793 n.2 (Ala. 2000).

2017Additionally, in Ex parte Anonymous, 803 So.2d 542 (Ala. 2001), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “ ‘The ore tenus rule provides that a trial court’s findings of fact based on oral testimony “have the effect of a jury’s verdict,” and that “[a] judgment, grounded on such findings, is accorded, on appeal, a presumption of correctness which will not be disturbed unless plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust.” Noland Co. v. Southern Dev.

2017“The ore tenus 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).’ “803 So.2d at 546.” J.W. v. C.H., 963 So.2d 114, 119 (Ala. Civ.

2026Standard of Review " '[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, its findings on disputed facts are presumed correct and its judgment based on those findings will not be reversed unless the judgment is palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust.' Philpot v. State, 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002). ' "The presumption of correctness, however, is rebuttable and may be overcome where there is insufficient evidence presented to the trial court to sustain its judgment." ' Waltman v. Rowell, 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Ala. 2005) (quoting Dennis v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 (Ala. 1985)). 'Additionally, th

2024Standard of Review " ' " ' [W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, its findings on disputed facts are presumed correct and its judgment based on those findings will not be reversed unless the judgment is palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust . ' " ' Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Bd. v. Parks, 977 So. 2d 440, 443 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Fadalla v. Fadalla, 929 So. 2d 429, 433 (Ala. 2005), quoting in turn Philpot v. State, 843 So. 2d 122, 125 (Ala. 2002)). ' "The presumption of correctness, however, is rebuttable and may be overcome where there is insufficient evidence presented to the tri

2016See Patronas , 693 So.2d at 475 . " 'However, even under the ore tenus rule, "[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion is clearly erroneous and must be reversed." ' B.J.N. v. P.D. , 742 So.2d 1270 , 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quoting Jacoby v. Bell , 370 So.2d 278 , 280 (Ala.1979) )." Cheek v. Dyess , 1 So.3d 1025 , 1029 (Ala.Civ.App.2007).

2015Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.” ’ “Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996)). “‘ “However, even under the ore tenus rule, ‘[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion. is clearly erroneous and must- be reversed.’ ” B.J.N. v. P.D., 742 So.2d 1270, 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (qu

2018Standard of Review Because the probate court conducted a bench trial in this case at which oral testimony was given, the ore tenus standard of review applies: " 'When a judge in a nonjury case hears oral testimony, a judgment based on findings of fact based on that testimony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error.' " Smith v. Muchia , 854 So.2d 85 , 92 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Allstate Ins.

2014Pursuant to the applicable ore tenus standard of review, “ ‘a judgment based on findings of fact based on [ore tenus] testi- ■ mony will be presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal except for a plain and palpable error.’ ” Smith v. Muc-hia, 854 So.2d 85, 92 (Ala.2003) (quoting Allstate Ins.

2024Applying the ore tenus standard of review, see Kennedy v. Boles Invs., Inc., 53 So. 3d 60, 67-68 (Ala. 2010), and considering Alabama caselaw on the various issues, I believe that the judgment is due to be affirmed on its merits, mostly for the reasons set forth in the brief filed by the husband.

2017The ore tenus 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) )." Kenn

2015Appellate courts do not sit in judgment of disputed evidence that was presented ore tenus before the trial court in a custody hearing.” ’ “Burgett v. Burgett, 995 So.2d 907, 912 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryowsky, 676 So.2d 1322, 1324 (Ala.1996)). “‘ “However, even under the ore tenus rule, ‘[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion. is clearly erroneous and must- be reversed.’ ” B.J.N. v. P.D., 742 So.2d 1270, 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (qu

2013The ore tenus standard of review provides: “ ‘ “[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.” ’ ” Yeager v. Lucy, 998 So.2d 460, 463 (Ala.2008) (quoting Reed v. Board of Trs. for Alabama State Univ., 778 So.2d 791, 795 (Ala.2000), quoting in turn Raidt v. Crane, 342 So

2017See Patronas , 693 So.2d at 475 . " ' "However, even under the ore tenus rule, '[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion is clearly erroneous and must be reversed.' " B.J.N. v. P.D. , 742 So.2d 1270 , 1274 (Ala. Civ.

2016See Patronas , 693 So.2d at 475 . " 'However, even under the ore tenus rule, "[w]here the conclusion of the trial court is so opposed to the weight of the evidence that the variable factor of witness demeanor could not reasonably substantiate it, then the conclusion is clearly erroneous and must be reversed." ' B.J.N. v. P.D. , 742 So.2d 1270 , 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (quoting Jacoby v. Bell , 370 So.2d 278 , 280 (Ala.1979) )." Cheek v. Dyess , 1 So.3d 1025 , 1029 (Ala.Civ.App.2007).

2026Corp. v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 608 So. 2d 375, 378 (Ala. 1992)). 'Additionally, we note that "the ore tenus standard is inapplicable 'where the evidence is undisputed, or where the material facts are established by the undisputed evidence.' Salter v. Hamiter, 887 So. 2d 230, 234 (Ala. 2004)." Burkes Mechanical[, Inc. v. Ft.

2025Moreover, "[u]nder the ore tenus rule, the trial court's judgment and all implicit findings necessary to support it carry a presumption of correctness." Transamerica, 608 So. 2d at 378 .

2014Furthermore, under the ore tenus rule, “appellate courts are not allowed to substitute their own judgment for that of the trial court if the trial court’s decision is supported by reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.” Ex parte Pie-lach, 681 So.2d 154,155 (Ala.1996).

2012Under the ore tenus rule, ‘ “appellate courts are not allowed to substitute their own judgment for that of the trial court if the trial court’s decision is supported by reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.” ’ Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church, 847 So.2d 331, 345 (Ala.2002) (quoting Ex parte Pielach, 681 So.2d 154, 155 (Ala.1996)).” 905 So.2d at 799 .

2026The trial court's decision to grant the writ of quo warranto was based on evidence presented in the December 18, 2025, hearing that included live testimony from the council members, Stephenson, and Banks. " 'Because the trial court heard "live" testimony at the hearing it conducted in this case, we review its findings of fact under the ore tenus standard of review. " 'Under the ore tenus rule, a trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct and its judgment will be reversed only if plainly or palpably wrong or against the preponderance of the evidence.' " Ex parte Baron Servs., Inc., 874

2026The trial court's decision to grant the writ of quo warranto was based on evidence presented in the December 18, 2025, hearing that included live testimony from the council members, Stephenson, and Banks. " 'Because the trial court heard "live" testimony at the hearing it conducted in this case, we review its findings of fact under the ore tenus standard of review. " 'Under the ore tenus rule, a trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct and its judgment will be reversed only if plainly or palpably wrong or against the preponderance of the evidence.' " Ex parte Baron Servs., Inc., 874