LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE — Interference with Findings of Fact — When Appellate Court May Interfere

Appellate courts defer to trial court findings of fact. Interference is justified only if the findings are unsupported by pleadings or evidence, or are perverse. Perversity means no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion on the evidence. The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error. The appellate court will not re-evaluate evidence simply because it might have reached a different conclusion. The principle respects the trial court’s advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases where the findings are manifestly unsupported or unreasonable. The rule promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The appellant must show clear error, not mere disagreement.