Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Review of (Non-Jury Matters)

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion. 

Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals

Cook v. Jefferson County, No. E2022-01537-COA-R3-CV ( Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2023)

Our review of the trial court’s judgment following a non jury trial is de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 204 (Tenn. 2012). This standard of review is the same for allocation [*9]  of fault in bench trials. Lindgren v. City of Johnson City, 88 S.W.3d 581, 584 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Cross v. City of Memphis, 20 S.W.3d 642 (Tenn. 2000)). “In order for the evidence to preponderate against the trial court’s finding of fact, the evidence must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011). Regarding our review of a trial court’s determinations of witness credibility, our Supreme Court has explained:

Unlike appellate courts, trial courts are able to observe witnesses as they testify and to assess their demeanor, which best situates trial judges to evaluate witness credibility. See State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990); Bowman v. Bowman, 836 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). Thus, trial courts are in the most favorable position to resolve factual disputes hinging on credibility determinations. See Tenn-Tex Properties v. Brownell-Electro, Inc., 778 S.W.2d 423, 425-26 (Tenn. 1989); Mitchell v. Archibald, 971 S. W.2d 25, 29 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). Accordingly, appellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

Wells v. Tenn. Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999).

Cook v. Jefferson Cty., No. E2022-01537-COA-R3-CV, 2023 Tenn. App. LEXIS 423, at *8-9 (Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2023)

Barrett v. Killings, No. M2022-00946-COA-R3-JV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 24, 2023).

Shams Properties, LLC v. All Natural Lawns and Landscapes, LLC, No. M2021-01543-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 19, 2023).

Lopez v Sharp, No. M2022-00679-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 3, 2023).

As stated by this Court in Logan v. Cannon, 602 S.W.3d 363, 378 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019),

Our review of the trial court’s judgment following a non-jury trial is de novo upon the record, with a presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. SeeTenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 204 (Tenn. 2012). “In order for the evidence to preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, the evidence must support another finding of factwith greater convincing effect.” Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). The trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 426 (Tenn. 2011); Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011).

Quinn v. Shelby County Schools, No. W2022-00104-COA-R3-CV, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2023).

This case was tried before the trial court without a jury; therefore, we review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo upon the record, with a presumption that the trial court’s findings are correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P. 13 (d); Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 108 (Tenn. 2015). We review questions of law de novo, with no presumption of correctness “and reach [our] own independent legal conclusions regarding these issues.” Nashville Ford Tractor, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 194 S.W.3d 415, 425 (Tenn. 2005).

Prichard v. Prichard, No. W2022-00728-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2023).

We review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo with a presumption of correctness and will honor those findings unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 295 S.W.3d 240, 245 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Keyt v. Keyt, 244 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2007)); see Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) (“Unless otherwise required by statute, review of findings of fact by the trial court in civil actions shall be de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.”). However, we review the trial court’s conclusions of law with no presumption of correctness. Id. at 245- 46 (citing Keyt, 244 S.W.3d at 327).

Hall v. Humphrey, No. E2022-00405-COA-R3-CV, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023).

With respect to a trial court’s findings of fact, Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(d) provides in part:

Unless otherwise required by statute, review of findings of fact by the trial court in civil actions shall be de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.

However, we review a trial court’s conclusions of law “under a purely de novo standard of review, affording no presumption of correctness to those findings.” In re Conservatorship of Davenport, No. E2004-01505-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 3533299, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2005) (citing Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993)). Concerning a trial court’s discretionary decisions, we utilize the following standard of review:

Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s ruling “will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to propriety of the decision made.” State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 273 (Tenn. 2000). A trial court abuses its discretion only when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999). The abuse of discretion standard does not permit the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998).

Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001).

Stooksbury v. Varney, No. E2021-01449-COA-R3-JV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar 27, 2023).

We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record, with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). “In order for the evidence to preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, the evidence must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). This presumption of correctness applies only to findings of fact and not to conclusions of law. Campbell v. Fla. Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996). The trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tenn. 2008); Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993). The trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 426 (Tenn. 2011).

Thomas v. Ken Smith Auto Parts, No. E2022-00591-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2023).

With respect to that portion of the case decided after the bench trial, our review is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).

Creger v. Creger, No. M2022-00558-COA-R3-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2023).

We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). We review questions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Bowden, 27 S.W.3d at 916 (citing Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 924 (Tenn. 1998)); see also In re Estate of Haskins, 224 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). In addition, the trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 426 (Tenn. 2011); Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002).

Waddell v. Waddell, No. W2020-00220-COA-R3-CV, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2023).

We review a non-jury case “de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). The trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and “are accorded no presumption of correctness.” Brunswick Acceptance Co., LLC v. MEJ, LLC, 292 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tenn. 2008).

Dulaney v. Chico, No. E2022-00047-COA-R3-CV, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2023).

In a non-jury case such as this one, appellate courts review the trial court’s factual findings de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2013). We review the trial court’s resolution of questions of law de novo, with no presumption of correctness.

Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 691-92 (Tenn. 2014).

Estate of Sane v. Sane, No. E2021-01525-COA-R3-CV, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2023).

We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). “In order for the evidence to preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, the evidence must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Wood v. Starks, 197 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). We review questions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Bowden, 27 S.W.3d at 916 (citing Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Tenn. 1998)); see also In Re Estate of Haskins, 224 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). We afford deference to the trial court’s credibility assessments of the witnesses. See Wells v. Tenn. Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 784 (Tenn. 1999).

Home Service Oil Company v. Baker, No. M2021-00586-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2023).

We review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo with a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d); Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). Evidence preponderates against a finding of fact when it “support[s] another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 581, 596 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). We review conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Kaplan v. Bugalla, 188 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tenn. 2006).

Dover Signature Properties, Inc. v. Customer Service Electric Supply, Inc., No. E2022-00461-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2023).

In a non-jury case such as the present one, we review findings of fact by the trial court “de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Our review of a trial court’s conclusions on issues of law, such as whether a contract has been formed, is also de novo but with no presumption of correctness. See Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) (“Questions of law are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness.”); Cadence Bank, N.A. v. The Alpha Trust, 473 S.W.3d 756, 773 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (noting that the determination of whether a contract has been formed is a question of law).

Nicely v. Atkins, No. E2022-00418-COA-R3-CV, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2023).

Our review is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).

Cousins v. Hutton Construction, Inc., No. E2021-01251-COA-R3-CV, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2023).

This case was decided by bench trial. Therefore, we review it pursuant to the standard found at Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Cross v. City of Memphis, 20 S.W.3d 642, 645 (Tenn. 2000). Pursuant to Rule 13, “review of findings of fact by the trial court in civil actions shall be de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Questions of law, such as interpretation of written agreements, are reviewed “de novo with no presumption of correctness or deference to the legal conclusions made by the lower courts.” Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363, 372 (Tenn. 2009) (citing Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827, 836 (Tenn. 2008)); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 195 S.W.3d 609, 611 (Tenn. 2006).

Sampson v. Aircraft Maintenance, Inc., No. M2021-01277-COA-R3-CV, p. 11-12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2023).

Ordinarily, a review of a trial court’s conclusions as to such factual findings would be approached with a presumption of correctness. Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d 381, 395 (Tenn. 2020) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) (2020); Hughes v. Tenn. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 514 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tenn. 2017)). Here, however, the case was tried primarily through the trial court’s review of cold deposition transcripts and exhibits rather than live testimony before the trial court. The testimony referenced by the trial court in its determination of the central factual issues of the dispute rests entirely on such documentary evidence.

In reviewing factual findings in such cases, the Tennessee Supreme Court has directed that appellate courts afford “no deference and no presumption of correctness to the trial court’s findings of fact.” Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d at 395. The Tennessee Supreme Court has explained that “[w]hen findings are based on documentary evidence, an appellate court’s ability to assess credibility and to weigh the evidence is the same as the trial court’s.” Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 693 (Tenn. 2014). “[W]hen factual findings are based on documentary evidence, an appellate court may draw its own conclusions with regard to the weight and credibility to be afforded that documentary evidence.” Id. (citing Excel Polymers, LLC v. Broyles, 302 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tenn. 2009)). Applying this standard of review, without presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s findings, we have conducted our own de novo review in considering the deposition testimony and exhibits presented to the trial court.

Trentham v. Mid-America Apartments, LP, No. M2021-01511-COA-R3-CV, p. 8-9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2023).

Our review of the trial court’s findings following a non-jury trial is “de novo based upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 204 (Tenn. 2012). As previously explained by this court:

[Rule] 13(d)’s presumption of correctness requires appellate courts to defer to a trial court’s findings of fact. Fell v. Rambo, 36 S.W.3d 837, 846 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Taylor v. Trans Aero Corp., 924 S.W.2d 109, 112 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)). Because of this presumption, an appellate court is bound to leave a trial court’s finding of fact undisturbed unless it determines that the aggregate weight of the evidence demonstrates that a finding of fact other than the one found by the trial court is more probably true. Estate of Haynes v. Braden, 835 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that an appellate court is bound to respect a trial court’s findings if it cannot determine that the evidence preponderates otherwise). Thus, for the evidence to preponderate against a trial court’s finding of fact, it must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.

Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011).

Cackowski v. Drakę, No. E2022-00700-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2023).

In a non-jury civil case, a trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed de novo with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 425-26 (Tenn. 2011) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, 81 S.W.3d 741, 744 (Tenn. 2002)). Questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. Id. at 426 (citing Seals v. H & F, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tenn. 2010); Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W. 3d 827, 836 (Tenn. 2008)).

Abernathy v. Barile, No. E2022-00081-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21. 2022).

As stated by our Supreme Court,

In a non-jury case such as this one, appellate courts review the trial court’s factual findings de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2013). We review the trial court’s resolution of questions of law de novo, with no presumption of correctness.

Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 691-92 (Tenn. 2014). The trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 426 (Tenn. 2011); Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002). This is “[b]ecause the trial court is in the best position to judge the parties’ credibility during live testimony at trial.” Larsen-Ball v. Ball, No. E2020-00297-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 3854802, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2021).

State v. Delinquent Taxpayers of Benton County Tennessee, No. W2021-01050-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2022).

This Court has previously explained our standard of review in the context of a delinquent tax redemption proceeding:

In actions tried upon the facts without a jury, appellate courts review the trial court’s findings de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2014) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). Our review of a trial court’s determinations on issues of law is de novo, with no presumption of correctness. Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn. 2011).

State v. Delinquent Taxpayers 2015, No. W2020-00981-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 3046970, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2021), appeal dismissed (Oct. 15, 2021).

Kindred v. Townsend, No. W2021-01481-COA-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2022).

This case was tried without a jury. Accordingly, under Rule 13(d) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, our review of the trial court’s findings of fact is de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tarrant, 363 S.W.3d 508, 512 (Tenn. 2012). The evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings of fact when it supports another finding “with greater convincing effect.” Hardeman Cnty. v. McIntyre, 420 S.W.3d 742, 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (citation omitted). The trial court’s findings of fact must, therefore, contain sufficient underlying facts to clearly disclose the basis of the trial court’s determinations. Lovelace v. Coley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 34 (Tenn. 2013) (citations omitted). Because the trial court is in in the best position to observe the witnesses and assess their demeanor, we will not reverse a trial court’s findings based on its assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W. 3d 779 (Tenn. 1999) (citations omitted). We likewise review a trial court’s allocation of fault de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness. Cross v. City of Memphis, 20 S.W.3d 642, 645 (Tenn. 2000).

McCurry v. McCurry, No. E2022-00635-COA-R3-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2022).

Our review of a trial court’s findings of fact is de novo upon the record accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 13(d); Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2013). We review a trial court’s conclusions of law de novo, according them no presumption of correctness. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d at 692; Rigsby v. Edmonds, 395 S.W.3d 728, 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).

Vance v. Blue, No. M2021-00064-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2022).

Whether the facts established in the trial court “satisfy the statutory standard” is a mixed question of law and fact. Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289 n.19 (1982) (A mixed question of law and fact is a “question[ ] in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated.”). “Cases that involve mixed questions of law and fact are subject to de novo review.” State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999).

In re Trust of Graham, No. M2021-00967-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2022).

We review a non-jury case “de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). The trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and “are accorded no presumption of correctness.” Brunswick Acceptance Co., LLC v. MEJ, LLC, 292 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tenn. 2008).

Furthermore, as we have noted many times, because “trial courts are able to observe witnesses as they testify and to assess their demeanor, . . . trial judges [are best suited] to evaluate witness credibility.” Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999) (citing State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990); Bowman v. Bowman, 836 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991)); see also Richards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 70 S.W.3d 729, 733 (Tenn. 2002) (“As this Court has repeatedly emphasized, a reviewing court must give ‘considerable deference’ to the trial judge with regard to oral, in-court testimony as it is the trial judge who has viewed the witnesses and heard the testimony.”). As such, “appellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Wells, 9 S.W.3d at 783 (internal citations omitted).

Barrios v. Simpkins, No. M2021-01347-COA-R3-CV, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct App. Nov. 10, 2022).

This Court reviews the factual findings of the trial court de novo with a presumption of correctness and will not overturn them unless the evidence preponderates against them. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 425-26 (Tenn. 2011). “In order for the evidence to preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, the evidence must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). We review questions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. See Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 924 (Tenn. 1998)). As to damages, although “[d]eterminations concerning the amount of damages are factually driven,” “the choice of the proper measure of damages is a question of law.” BancorpSouth Bank, Inc. v. Hatchel, 223 S.W.3d 223, 228 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Beaty v. McGraw, 15 S.W.3d 819, 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)).

Mangum v. Mangum, No. E2021-00285-COA-R3-CV, p. 15-16 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2022).

Our review is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001). Regarding witness credibility, our Supreme Court has stated:

When it comes to live, in-court witnesses, appellate courts should afford trial courts considerable deference when reviewing issues that hinge on the witnesses’ credibility because trial courts are “uniquely positioned to observe the demeanor and conduct of witnesses.” State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 217 (Tenn. 2000). “[A]ppellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999); see also Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011). In order for evidence to be clear and convincing, it must eliminate any “serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.” State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 404 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208, 221 (Tenn. 2009)). Whether the evidence is clear and convincing is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo without a presumption of correctness. Reid ex rel. Martiniano v. State, 396 S.W.3d 478, 515 (Tenn. 2013), (citing In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586, 596-97 (Tenn. 2010)), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 224, 187 L.Ed.2d 167 (2013).

Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692-93 (Tenn. 2014). To the extent that the issues on appeal implicate the abuse of discretion standard of review, “[a] court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d 381, 395 (Tenn. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297, 305-06 (Tenn. 2020)).

Haiser v. McClung, No. E2021-00825-COA-R3-CV, p. 11-12 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2022).

Our review of this non-jury case is de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). “In order for the evidence to preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, the evidence must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “The trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Haiser II, 2018 WL 415087, at *10 (citing Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002)). Our review of the trial court’s conclusions of law, including its interpretation of a written agreement, is de novo with no presumption of correctness. See Dick Broad. Co. of Tenn. v. Oak Ridge FM, Inc., 395 S.W.3d 653, 659 (Tenn. 2013); Ray Bell Constr. Co., Inc. v. State, Tenn. Dep’t of Transp., 356 S.W.3d 384, 386 (Tenn. 2011).

Robinson v. Mahaffey, No. M2021-01068-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2022).

Because the trial court decided this case without a jury, we review the decision de novo on the record and presume the trial court’s factual findings are correct. TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d); Fowler v. Wilbanks, 48 S.W.3d 738, 740 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). We will not reverse the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. Berryhill v. Rhodes, 21 S.W.3d 188, 190 (Tenn. 2000). For the evidence to preponderate against the trial court’s factual finding, it must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect. Walker v. Sidney Gilreath & Assocs., 40 S.W.3d 66, 70-71 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). If the trial court fails to make findings of fact, however, our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Archer v. Archer, 907 S.W.2d 412, 416 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). Likewise, we review the trial court’s application of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). In the case of mixed questions of law and fact, we review them de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Thacker, 164 S.W.3d 208, 248 (Tenn. 2005). If the trial court makes an assessment of a witness’s credibility, this Court will not reevaluate that assessment absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002).

Leedy v. Hickory Ridge, LLC, No. E2022-00035-COA-R3-CV, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2022).

This matter was tried without a jury. Our review is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001). We defer to trial courts’ assessments of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2014) (citations omitted). Clear and convincing evidence eliminates any “serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.” Id. at 692-93 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371, 404 (Tenn. 2012)). To the extent that the issues on appeal implicate the abuse of discretion standard of review, “[a] court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d 381, 395 (Tenn. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297, 305-06 (Tenn. 2020)).

Columbia Housing & Redevelopment Corp. v. Braden, No. M2021-00329-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2022).

The material facts are not disputed, and the issue before us presents a question of law. Our review of a trial court’s determinations on issues of law is de novo, without any presumption of correctness. See Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn. 2011).

Mitchell v. City of Franklin, Tennessee, No. M2021-00877-COA-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2022).

This matter was decided by the trial court without a jury. Therefore, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness unless the preponderance of evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). “For the evidence to preponderate against a trial court’s findings of fact, it must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Traylor ex rel. Traylor v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. W2013-00836-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 7921131, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2014) (citing Walker v. Sidney Gilreath & Assocs., 40 S.W.3d 66, 71 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000); Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 581, 596 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)). “A trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, with no presumption of correctness.” Id. (citing Nashville Ford Tractor, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 194 S.W.3d 415, 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)).

Meadows v. Story, No. M2020-00886-COA-R3-CV, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2022).

We review a trial court’s findings of fact de novo on the record, with a presumption of correctness of the findings, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d). We give “great weight” to findings based on credibility determinations. King v. Anderson Cnty., 419 S.W.3d 232, 245-46 (Tenn. 2013). We “will not second-guess a trial court’s credibility determinations without ‘clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.’” Id. at 246 (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tarrant, 363 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tenn. 2012)).

Runion v. Runion, No. E2021-00544-COA-R3-CV, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2022).

This case was decided by the trial court sitting without a jury. Accordingly, we review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo presuming the findings are correct unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Cross v. City of Memphis, 20 S.W.3d 642, 645 (Tenn. 2000); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). The trial court’s legal conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. T.R. Mills Contractors, Inc. v. WRH Enter., LLC, 93 S.W.3d 861, 864 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000)).

Boesch v. Holeman, No. E2021-01242-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2022).

Review following a non-jury trial is “de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the trial court’s finding of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 204 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Gautreaux v. Internal Med. Educ. Found., 336 S.W.3d 526, 532 (Tenn. 2011)). We may only reverse the factual findings of the trial court if the evidence presented necessitates a new finding of fact that is more persuasive than the evidence used to make the decision at the trial court. Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 225, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). However, a trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).

Locke v. Locke, No. M2021-01454-COA-R3-CV, p. 3-4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2022).

Our review of the trial court’s judgment following a non-jury trial is de novo upon the record, with a presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 204 (Tenn. 2012). “In order for the evidence to preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, the evidence must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). The trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 426 (Tenn. 2011); Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011).

Shelton v. Eden, No. M2021-01080-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2022).

“In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury, the court shall find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. If the trial court makes the required findings of fact, “appellate courts review the trial court’s factual findings de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2014). “For the evidence to preponderate against a trial court’s finding of fact, it must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” State ex rel. Flowers v. Tennessee Trucking Ass’n Self Ins. Grp. Tr., 209 S.W.3d 595, 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citations omitted).

While there is no bright-line test to assess the sufficiency of the trial court’s factual findings, the general rule is that “the findings of fact must include as much of the subsidiary facts as is necessary to disclose to the reviewing court the steps by which the trial court reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual issue.” Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 35 (Tenn. 2013) (quoting 9C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2579 (3d ed. 1998)).

Our review of a trial court’s determinations on issues of law is de novo, without any presumption of correctness. See Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn. 2011).

Tennessee Homes v. Welch, No. M2021-01383-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2022).

This is an appeal of a trial court’s decision made from a bench trial. “In an appeal from a bench trial, we review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” Smith v. Hi-Speed, Inc., 536 S.W.3d 458, 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Foster-Henderson v. Memphis Health Ctr., Inc., 479 S.W.3d 214, 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015)). Furthermore, “great weight is given to the trial court’s determinations of credibility.” Pless v. Pless, 603 S.W.3d 753, 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d 956, 959 (Tenn. 1997)). Therefore, we give “great weight to a trial court’s factual findings that rest on determinations of credibility.” Id. (quoting Nashville Ford Tractor, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 194 S.W.3d 415, 424 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (citations omitted)). “Although we also review the trial court’s resolution on a question of law de novo, no presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court’s legal conclusions.” Hi-Speed, Inc., 536 S.W.3d at 467 (citing Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000)).

Luna Law Group, PLLC v. Roberts, No. M2021-00699-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2022).

We review a non-jury case “de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). The trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and “are accorded no presumption of correctness.” Brunswick Acceptance Co., LLC v. MEJ, LLC, 292 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tenn. 2008).

We note that, because “trial courts are able to observe witnesses as they testify and to assess their demeanor, . . . trial judges [are best suited] to evaluate witness credibility.” Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999) (citing State v. Pruett, 788 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990); Bowman v. Bowman, 836 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991)); see also Richards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 70 S.W.3d 729, 733 (Tenn. 2002) (“As this Court has repeatedly emphasized, a reviewing court must give ‘considerable deference’ to the trial judge with regard to oral, in-court testimony as it is the trial judge who has viewed the witnesses and heard the testimony.”). As such, “appellate courts will not re-evaluate a trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Wells, 9 S.W.3d at 783 (internal citations omitted).

Kidd v. Lewis, No. E2021-01156-COA-R3-CV, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 21, 2022).

Our review is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).

Hyatt v. Adenus Group, LLC, No. M2021-00645-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2022).

Review of a trial court’s findings of fact in a bench trial is de novo, “accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding[s], unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Thus, we are required to defer to the trial court’s fact-findings unless we “determin[e] that the aggregate weight of the evidence demonstrates that a finding of fact other than the one found by the trial court is more probably true.” Sikora v. Vanderploeg, 212 S.W.3d 277, 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citation omitted). “The presumption of correctness in Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) applies only to findings of fact, not to conclusions of law. Accordingly, appellate courts review a trial court’s resolution of legal issues without a presumption of correctness and reach their own independent conclusions regarding these issues.” Id. (citations omitted).

Blackthorn House, LLC v. First Volunteer Bank, No. E2021-00346-COA-R3-CV, p. 7-8 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 12, 2022).

“In an appeal from a bench trial, we review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” Foster– Henderson v. Memphis Health Ctr., Inc., 479 S.W.3d 214, 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). If the trial court has not made a specific finding of fact on a particular matter, we review the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies without employing a presumption of correctness. Ganzevoort v. Russell, 949 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Tenn. 1997). “[F]or the evidence to preponderate against a trial court’s finding of fact, it must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 581, 596 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

“We also review the trial court’s resolution on a question of law de novo, and no presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court’s legal conclusions.” Tennessee Bank & Tr. v. Boruff, No. M2021-00552-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 781048, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2022) (citing Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000)). “The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law that requires a de novo review on appeal.” Guiliano v. Cleo, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 88, 95 (Tenn. 1999) (citing Hamblen Cnty. v. City of Morristown, 656 S.W.2d 331, 335-336 (Tenn. 1983)). Similarly, whether a party has satisfied its duty to mitigate damages is a matter of law and must be reviewed de novo. B.W. Byrd Metal Fabricators, Inc. v. Alcoa, Inc., No. E2018-01750-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 3889798, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2019).

Robinson v. Robinson, No. E2020-01535-COA-R3-CV, p. 9-10 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 29, 2022).

The underlying rationale for Rule 52.01’s mandate is that written findings of fact and conclusions of law facilitate appellate review by “affording a reviewing court a clear understanding of the basis of a trial court’s decision.” In re Est. of Oakley, No. M2014- 00341-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 572747, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2015) (quoting Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1, 34 (Tenn. 2013)). “In the absence of written findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court is left to wonder on what basis the court reached its ultimate decision.” Id. (quoting In re Christian G., No. W2013-02269-COA-R3-JV, 2014 WL 3896003, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2014)). Further, compliance with the mandate of Rule 52.01 enhances “the authority of the trial court’s decision by providing an explanation of the court’s reasoning.” Gooding v. Gooding, 477 S.W.3d 774, 782 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting In re Zaylen R., No. M2003-00367-COA-R3-JV, 2005 WL 2384703, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2005)).

“There is no bright-line test by which to assess the sufficiency of the trial court’s factual findings . . . .” Lovlace, 418 S.W.3d at 35. The general rule is that “the findings of fact must include as much of the subsidiary facts as is necessary to disclose to the reviewing court the steps by which the trial court reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual issue.” Id. (quoting 9C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2579 (3d ed. 2005)).

If the trial court makes the required findings of fact, the trial court’s factual findings are reviewed de novo, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Boarman v. Jaynes, 109 S.W.3d 286, 290 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 456 (Tenn. 2001)). “For the evidence to preponderate against a trial court’s finding of fact, it must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 581, 596 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).

“When the trial court fails to explain the factual basis for its decisions, we may conduct a de novo review of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies or remand the case with instructions to make the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter judgment accordingly.” Gooding, 477 S.W.3d at 783 (citations omitted). The trial court’s conclusion that Husband dissipated the marital estate was not supported by specific findings of fact. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, “we shall conduct our own de novo review to first determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies and then determine whether the evidence, when applied to the applicable legal principles, provides a proper factual foundation for the decision challenged on appeal.” Id.

Frontz v. Hall, No. E2021-00154-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2022).

As stated by our Supreme Court,

In a non-jury case such as this one, appellate courts review the trial court’s factual findings de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2013). We review the trial court’s resolution of questions of law de novo, with no presumption of correctness.

Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 691-92 (Tenn. 2014).

Wilson Bank & Trust v. Consolidated Utility District of Rutherford County,  No. M2021-00167-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 10, 2022).

This case was decided by the trial court, sitting without a jury, based upon the stipulated facts agreed to by the parties. We therefore apply the standard of review applicable to bench trials, which is the now familiar standard provided in Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Cross v. City of Memphis, 20 S.W.3d 642, 644 (Tenn. 2000). Under this standard we review the trial court’s factual findings de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). The trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness. Nashville Ford Tractor, Inc. v. Great Amer. Ins. Co., 194 S.W.3d 415, 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

Haynes v. Haynes,  No. W2021-01004-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 26, 2022) (memorandum opinion).

Because the trial court decided this matter without a jury, we review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d); Chandler v. Chandler, No. W2010- 01503-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 2393698, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 26, 2012). We review a trial court’s conclusions of law de novo without a presumption of correctness. Chandler, 2012 WL 2393698, at *5.

State of Tennessee ex rel. Tulis v. Lee, Governor of Tennessee, No. E2021-00436-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2022).

Our review of the trial court’s judgment following a non-jury proceeding is de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 204 (Tenn. 2012). “In order for the evidence to preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact, the evidence must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 255, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty, 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011).

Hall v. Hall, No. M2021-00757-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 24, 2022).

We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). We review questions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. See Bowden, 27 S.W.3d at 916 (citing Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 924 (Tenn. 1998)); see also In re Estate of Haskins, 224 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). In addition, the trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 426 (Tenn. 2011); Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002).

Griffith-Ball v. Ball, No. M2020-00509-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2022).

Because this was a bench trial, our review is de novo on the record with a presumption that the trial court’s factual findings are correct, unless the evidence preponderates against those findings. TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d). Evidence preponderates against a finding of fact if the evidence “support[s] another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Kaplan v. Bugalla, 188 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tenn. 2006).

In Re J.H., No. E2021-00624-COA-R3-PT, p. 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2022).

The trial court reiterated this credibility finding in its final order.  See Franklin County Bd. of Educ. v. Crabtree, 337 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2005)) (noting that, if the trial court’s factual determinations are based on its assessment of witness credibility, the court would not reevaluate that assessment absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary). [Footnote omitted.]

Standley v. Standley, No. M2021-00591-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2022).

We review a non-jury case “de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). The trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and “are accorded no presumption of correctness.” Brunswick Acceptance Co., LLC v. MEJ, LLC, 292 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tenn. 2008).

Law v. Law, No. E2021-00206-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2022).

Because this is an appeal from a bench trial, we review the trial court’s factual findings de novo, presuming their correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. See Boote v. Shivers, 198 S.W.3d 732, 740 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 24, 2006); Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). “[F]or the evidence to preponderate against a trial court’s finding of fact, it must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Boote, 198 S.W.3d at 741. The presumption of correctness does not apply to the trial court’s conclusions of law. Id. We ascribe great weight to the trial court’s credibility determinations and will not re-evaluate those determinations absent clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 740 (citing Estate of Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d 956, 959 (Tenn. 1997)).

Hadley v. State of Tennessee, No. E2021-00203-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2022).

We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record, with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). This presumption of correctness applies only to findings of fact and not to conclusions of law. Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996). The trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness.  Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tenn. 2008); Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993).

Southern Steel & Concrete, Inc. v. Southern Steel & Construction, Inc., p. 10 No. W2020-00475-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2022).

We review a trial court’s order following a non-jury trial “de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the trial court’s finding of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Rogers v. Louisville Land Co., 367 S.W.3d 196, 204 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Gautreaux v. Internal Med. Educ. Found., 336 S.W.3d 526, 532 (Tenn. 2011)). Because of this presumption, we will not disturb a trial court’s finding of fact unless the aggregate weight of the evidence demonstrates that a finding of fact other than one found by the trial court is more probably true. Estate of Haynes v. Braden, 835 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992). “[F]or the evidence to preponderate against a trial court’s finding of fact, it must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Nashville Ford Tractor, Inc. v. Great American Ins. Co., 194 S.W.3d 415, 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). Furthermore, “where the trial judge has seen and heard witnesses, especially where issues of credibility and weight of oral testimony are involved, on review considerable deference must still be accorded to those circumstances.” Jones v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 811 S.W.2d 516, 521 (Tenn. 1991) (citations omitted). The Tennessee Supreme Court has explained that a trial court is in a far better position than the appellate court to resolve competing evidence. Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 89 (Tenn. 2001) (citations omitted). “The trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to de novo review with no presumption of correctness.” Rogers, 367 S.W.3d at 204 (citing Harman v. Univ. of Tenn., 353 S.W.3d 734, 736-37 (Tenn. 2011)).

Williams v. Williams, No. E2021-00432-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2022).

We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). We review questions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Bowden, 27 S.W.3d at 916 (citing Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 924 (Tenn. 1998)); see also In re Estate of Haskins, 224 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). In addition, the trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 426 (Tenn. 2011); Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002).

 In Re: Gracelyn H., No. W2021-00141-COA-R3-JV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2022).

“In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury, the court shall find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. If the trial court makes the required findings of fact, “appellate courts review the trial court’s factual findings de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2014); see Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). In doing so, we give great weight to a trial court’s determinations of credibility. See Estate of Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d 956, 959 (Tenn. 1997). “For the evidence to preponderate against a trial court’s finding of fact, it must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” State ex rel. Flowers v. Tennessee Trucking Ass’n Self Ins. Grp. Trust, 209 S.W.3d 595, 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (citations omitted).

Our review of a trial court’s determinations on issues of law is de novo, with no presumption of correctness. See Lind v. Beaman Dodge, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tenn. 2011).

Cupples v. Holmes, No. W2021-00523-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2022).

We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); In re Estate of Fletcher, 538 S.W.3d 444, 448 (Tenn. 2017) (“This matter was heard without a jury; therefore, our standard of review is de novo upon the record of the proceedings below with a presumption of correctness as to the trial court’s factual determinations unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.”). However, our review of the court’s legal conclusions is de novo with no presumption of correctness. Estate of Fletcher, 538 S.W.3d at 448; see Blankenship v. Blankenship, 59 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Tennessee Bank & Trust v. Boruff,  No. M2021-00552-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2022).

“In an appeal from a bench trial, we review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo with a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise.” Foster– Henderson v. Memphis Health Ctr., Inc., 479 S.W.3d 214, 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (citing TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d)). If the trial court has not made a specific finding of fact on a particular matter, we review the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies without employing a presumption of correctness. Ganzevoort v. Russell, 949 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Tenn. 1997). “[F]or the evidence to preponderate against a trial court’s finding of fact, it must support another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 581, 596 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). We also review the trial court’s resolution on a question of law de novo, and no presumption of correctness attaches to the trial court’s legal conclusions. Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). “The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law that requires a de novo review on appeal.” Guiliano v. Cleo, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 88, 95 (Tenn. 1999) (citing Hamblen Cty. v. City of Morristown, 656 S.W.2d 331, 335-336 (Tenn. 1983)). Similarly, whether a party has satisfied its duty to mitigate damages is a matter of law and must be reviewed de novo. B.W. Byrd Metal Fabricators, Inc. v. Alcoa, Inc., No. E2018-01750-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 3889798, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2019).

Reed v. Cars of Nashville, Inc., No. M2021-00854-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2022).

We review a non-jury case de novo upon the record, with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). This presumption of correctness applies only to findings of fact and not to conclusions of law. Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996). The trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. Blackburn v. Blackburn, 270 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tenn. 2008); Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993). The trial court’s determinations regarding witness credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and shall not be disturbed absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See Morrison v. Allen, 338 S.W.3d 417, 426 (Tenn. 2011).

In re Estate of Patsy Glover Bonifield, No. W2020-01593-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2022).

We review a non-jury case “de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). The trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and “are accorded no presumption of correctness.” Brunswick Acceptance Co., LLC v. MEJ, LLC, 292 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tenn. 2008).

Rothbauer v. Sheltrown, No. W2021-00607-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2022).

This action was tried by the court without a jury, so we review the trial court’s findings of fact de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Watson v. Watson, 309 S.W.3d 483, 490 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Keyt v. Keyt, 244 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2007).

Murdock v. Murdock,  No. W2019-00979-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. March 2, 2022).

This  case  was  tried  without  a  jury.   As  such,  “[o]ur  review  is  de  novo  upon  the record  of  the  proceedings  below  with  a  presumption  of  correctness  as  to  the  trial  court’s factual  findings  unless  the  evidence  preponderates  against  those  findings.”  Barnes  v. Barnes, 193 S.W.3d 495, 498 (Tenn. 2006) (citing Tenn. R. App. P.  13(d)). However, the trial  court’s  conclusions  of  law  “are  accorded  no  such  presumption.”  Id.  (citing  Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993)).

We  also  note  that this  Court  is  “required  to  defer  to  the  trial  court’s  credibility findings .  .  .  .”  Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96, 120 (Tenn. 2015);  see also  Street v. Street, No. E2016-00531-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 1177034, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29,  2017).  In  Wells  v.  Tennessee  Board  of  Regents,  9  S.W.3d  779  (Tenn.  1999),  the Tennessee Supreme Court explained that

trial  courts  are  able  to  observe  witnesses  as  they  testify  and  to  assess  their demeanor, which best situates trial judges to evaluate witness credibility.  See State  v.  Pruett,  788  S.W.2d  559,  561  (Tenn.  1990);  Bowman  v.  Bowman, 836 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). Thus, trial courts are in the most favorable  position  to  resolve  factual  disputes  hinging  on  credibility determinations.  See  Tenn-Tex  Properties  v.  Brownell-Electro,  Inc.,  778 S.W.2d 423, 425-26 (Tenn. 1989);  Mitchell v.  Archibald, 971 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tenn.  Ct.  App.  1998).  Accordingly,  appellate  courts  will  not  re-evaluate  a trial  judge’s  assessment  of  witness  credibility  absent  clear  and  convincing evidence  to  the  contrary.  See  Humphrey  v.  David  Witherspoon,  Inc.,  734 S.W.2d 315, 315-16 (Tenn. 1987);  Bingham v.  Dyersburg Fabrics Co., Inc., 567 S.W.2d 169, 170 (Tenn. 1978).

Wells, 9 S.W.3d at 783.

Buckley v. Carlock, No. M2019-02294-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2022).

Because  this  was  a  bench  trial,  our  review  is  de  novo  on  the  record  with  a presumption  that  the  trial  court’s  factual  findings  are  correct,  unless  the  evidence preponderates  against  those  findings.    TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d).   Evidence  preponderates against  a  finding  of  fact  if  the  evidence  “support[s]  another  finding  of  fact  with  greater convincing  effect.”    Rawlings  v.  John  Hancock  Mut.  Life  Ins. Co.,  78  S.W.3d  291,  296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).  We give great deference to the trial court’s credibility assessments.  See  Watson  v.  Watson,  309  S.W.3d  483,  490  (Tenn.  Ct.  App.  2009).   We  do  not  disturb “factual  findings  based  on  witness  credibility  unless  clear  and  convincing  evidence supports a different finding.”   Coleman Mgmt., Inc. v. Meyer, 304 S.W.3d 340, 348 (Tenn. Ct.  App.  2009).   We  review  the  trial  court’s  conclusions  of  law  de  novo  with  no presumption of correctness.   Kaplan v. Bugalla, 188 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tenn. 2006).

Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee v. Gelle, No. M2020-01360-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2022).

This  case  involved  a  bench  trial.    Our  review  is  de  novo upon  the  record, accompanied  by  a presumption  of  correctness  of  the  findings  of  fact  of  the  trial  court,  unless the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  is  otherwise.  Tenn.  R.  App.  P.  13(d);  Kelly  v.  Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685, 692 (Tenn. 2014). A  trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a  de novo review with no presumption of correctness. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d at 692.

In re Kenneth D., No.  M2021-00214-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2022).

We  review  the  trial  court’s  findings  of  fact  “de  novo  on  the  record,  with  a presumption  of  correctness  of  the  findings,  unless  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  is otherwise.”   In re Taylor B.W., 397 S.W.3d 105, 112 (Tenn. 2013);  TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d).  We  then  “make  [our]  own  determination  regarding  whether  the  facts,  either  as  found  by the  trial  court  or  as  supported  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence,  provide  clear  and convincing  evidence  that  supports  all  the  elements  of  the  termination  claim.”    In  re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d at 596-97.  We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness.   In re J.C.D., 254 S.W.3d 432, 439 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).

In re Estate of Lester Stokes, No. W2021-00249-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb.17, 2022).

We review a non-jury case “de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). The trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and “are accorded no presumption of correctness.” Brunswick Acceptance Co., LLC v. MEJ, LLC, 292 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tenn. 2008).

Killian v. Moore, No. M2020-01283-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2022).

A trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon Cty. Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).

Conley v. Knox County Sheriff, No. E2020-01713-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2022).

We review a non-jury case “de novo upon the record with a presumption of correctness as to the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). The trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and “are accorded no presumption of correctness.” Brunswick Acceptance Co., LLC v. MEJ, LLC, 292 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tenn. 2008).

Neff v. Wood, No. M2020-00748-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2022).

Our review of the trial court’s factual findings after a bench trial is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. R. APP. P. 13(d). Evidence preponderates against a finding of fact if the evidence “support[s] another finding of fact with greater convincing effect.” Rawlings v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 291, 296 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness. Kaplan v. Bugalla, 188 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tenn. 2006).

McKeehan v. Price, No. E2021-00453-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2022).

Our review is de novo upon the record, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact of the trial court, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721, 727 (Tenn. 2001). A trial court’s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo review with no presumption of correctness. S. Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ., 58 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2001).